Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1987
2. National Provident Institution Act 1987
3. Bexley London Borough Council Act 1987

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HIGHLAND REGION HARBOURS (MISCELLANEOUS POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Children's Hospital, Cardiff

Mr. Morgan:: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in opposition to the closure proposed for 1988–89 of the Children's ear, nose and throat hospital, Ely, Cardiff; and what assessment has been made of the suitability of alternative medical facilities offered at the University hospital of Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales wishes me to apologise for his absence from the House on an important inward investment mission overseas.
My right hon. Friend has received two representations on the proposed closure of the Children's ear, nose and throat hospital at Ely from nursing and administrative staff at the hospital. The suitability of alternative medical facilities at the University hospital of Wales is a matter for South Glamorgan health authority in the first instance.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that the act of medical vandalism that is being contemplated by South Glamorgan health authority will lower the standard of hospital services by removing the only specialist children's hospital in Wales? Since about 40 per cent. of its patients come from outside South Glamorgan, if Welsh Office Ministers cannot take responsibility for the quality of hospital services in such regional specialty hospitals, who can?

Mr. Grist: The proposal has yet to be approved by the health authority. If there is continuing disagreement, it must come to my right hon. Friend for a decision. In those circumstances, I can make no comment at this stage.

Sir Raymond Gower: Could the matter be examined in another way? Is my hon. Friend aware that the over-concentration in the University hospital has led to a tremendous shortage of building space and parking space, not only for relatives visiting patients, but for members of staff? Will the over-concentration continue, or will wiser counsels prevail?

Mr. Grist: I am not sure about wiser counsels, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. The health authority will have considered that issue when examining alternative accommodation at the University hospital. If the matter came before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I imagine that he would consider it, too.

Low-flying Aircraft

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from farmers in Wales concerning the disturbance caused to livestock in Wales by low-flying aircraft.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): None. Complaints would normally be made direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Defence to ban all low flying at 100 ft in Wales, as it is causing great suffering to people and animals? Will he press the point that farmers whose beef cows have aborted, which frequently happens as a result of low flying, should be fully compensated to the equivalent price of a nine-month-old suckle cow?

Mr. Roberts: Any claims for compensation arising from damage alleged to have been caused by aircraft activities should be submitted to the Ministry of Defence claims commission. The claims procedure has been agreed between the claims commission of the MOD, the agriculture departments and the farming unions. I cannot hold out any promise of banning low-flying aircraft, since that form of training is, of course, vital.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Of course, no one likes aircraft screaming over his head, but is it not some consolation to be able to look up and see that they do not carry red stars under their wings?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right. Whenever people complain about low-flying aircraft to me, I ask the question, "Were they ours?"

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Minister accept that at least one fifth of these aircraft are not ours—unless one regards the United States as part of his Department? Will he, therefore, take seriously the number of complaints from the farming community, in view of the information given to me by the Minister of Defence about the increased number of flights and the noise of aircraft? Will he support the call for a review of low-flying procedure, as it is 10 years since we last reviewed it?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is well aware of the views of farmers and the hon. Gentleman on low-flying aircraft.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that not only livestock but people are deeply disturbed by these supersonic sorties above their homes? There have been terrible accidents, and pilots, aircrew and valuable jet planes have been lost. Is it not time for the Government to take heed of the multitude of protests that they have recieved and call a halt to these uncivilised exercises?

Mr. Roberts: The Welsh Office is responsible for many things, but defence is not one of them. These questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects hospital waiting lists in Gwent to fall.

Mr. Grist: In-patient waiting lists in Gwent fell from 8,842 to 7,705 between March 1986 and March 1987. The number of in-patients treated increased by 32·4 per cent. between 1979 and 1986. Much remains to be done, and Gwent health authority is actively working on the problem in conjunction with the Welsh Office.

Mr. Flynn: The people of Gwent will give little thanks for that rather complacent reply. One out of six is not good enough. In the other categories of waiting lists in Gwent, there has been an increase in those of urgent cases; in urgent cases waiting for more than a month; and in non-urgent cases waiting for more than a year. The total number of out-patients who are waiting has increased, as has that of out-patients waiting for more than three months. That follows a special effort by the Welsh Office to reduce waiting lists to acceptable levels.
Does the Minister recognise that the Health Service in Gwent is locked into a spiral of decline, caused by the burden placed on it by a 20 per cent. increase in work with only a 5 per cent. increase in resources? The Gwent area health authority also faces a special burden of paying locally the capital cost of rebuilding the Royal Gwent hospital—money that is funded centrally elsewhere in Wales.

Mr. Grist: The system under which the area health authorities have operated for their capital funding has been the same for all since 1984. Gwent has been well funded. Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that median waiting times for in-patients in Wales have fallen from 47 days to 42 days under this Government. The waiting list for in-patients in Gwent has fallen by more than 1,100 to March of this year.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that the people of Wales, as well as the people of Gwent, are concerned about the length of waiting lists? As the Minister responsible for health in Wales, is he proud that we now have the lowest number of hospital beds since the Health Service was set up in 1948, that we have fewer beds in relation to population than Scotland or Northern Ireland, and that we have longer waiting lists than Scotland or Northern Ireland? In those circumstances, does it make sense that, in the past 18 months, we have lost 700 hospital beds in Wales, several hospitals are now under threat of closure and our already overstretched health authorities face £6 million of cuts by the end of the year?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I tell the Front Bench that that question has now been asked, but I denied a question to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) because I thought that he might deal with wider issues.

Mr. Grist: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who went on at great length, overlooked the fact that it is a matter not of having beds available, but of how many patients one treats. It is worth pointing out that when he was a Minister the number of in-patient places in Wales rose by 3 per cent., but under this Government the number has risen by 24 per cent. or 84,000 every year. Out-patient treatment fell by 3 per cent. under the previous Labour Administration, but has risen by 18 per cent. under this Government.

Education Reform

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the inclusion of Welsh in the core curriculum.

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning his proposals for a core curriculum in Wales; and when he hopes to respond to those representations.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: We have received a total of 203 representations that refer to the position of Welsh within the national curriculum. Of those, 150 favour the inclusion of Welsh as a core or foundation subject throughout Wales. I expect to publish soon a statement of policy on the national curriculum in Wales, which will embody our response to the consultation exercise.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will be aware that, as a Welshman who learnt Welsh as an adult, I have the interests of the Welsh language at heart. Will he assure me that he will take into account the diversity of Wales and the impossibility of forcing Welsh on the children of Gwent? Circumstances vary within Wales, and a policy of forcing Welsh on people will not be in the best interests of the Welsh language.

Mr. Roberts: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's considerable interest in the promotion of the language and the fact that he has written a book about it. He is right. There is considerable diversity in knowledge of the language throughout Wales. Some 20 per cent. of our children are taught in Welsh and 80 per cent. are not. Nevertheless, we believe that Welsh should have its place in the curriculum. I believe that we have found the right answer in making it part of the core curriculum for those who are taught in Welsh, and part of the general curriculum for others.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Minister now answer my question, is was a general question about the core curriculum, the number of representations that have been made to him, and what response he expects to make? My question is not about Welsh in the core curriculum, but about the core curriculum in general. Does he accept that the notion of a core curriculum divided into subjects, whether core or foundation, is completely outdated and has no relevance to the reality of pupils' learning experiences? Does the Minister further accept that his Department needs to take a transcurricular approach on language, scientific, environmental and social issues at


primary and early secondary level? Such an approach is much more relevant to school pupils than is a curriculum based on the notion of subjects.

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that what we have said about the core curriculum and the curriculum in general debars transcurricular teaching.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What proposals does my hon. Friend have in mind in the core curriculum for religious education and the daily act of worship?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will know that religious education is, of course, a statutory requirement under the Education Act 1944, and our proposals do not change that. We believe that religious education is vital to the spiritual development of our children. With regard to the collective act of worship, we trust that there will be flexibility in the timing so that it can take place at different times if necessary.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister did not answer question 14, will you decouple it from question 4 and make sure that an answer is given when we come to it?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister chooses what answer he gives. I remind the House that question 14 is about the curriculum in Wales, and goes wider than question 4.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Taking into account the diversity of Wales, does the Minister agree that, in Dyfed and Gwynedd, Welsh should have almost as important a place in the curriculum as English, and that the problem of the place of the Welsh language in the core curriculum highlights the wrong thinking behind the core curriculum? Does he agree that those decisions are far better left to the individual local authority?

Mr. Roberts: We intend to consult the local education authorities. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said that where Welsh is the medium of teaching it will he included in the core curriculum. We shall set up a subject group to deal with Welsh in the curriculum, and I very much hope that that group will be able to devise courses and set levels of learning and attainment that will satisfy all people in Wales.

Mr. Forth: Would it not be a tragic misuse of finite educational resources to have a declining language in the core curriculum? Would it not be much more appropriate for that language to be allowed as an option in a flexible way during the time outside the core curriculum, so that it may have its proper place?

Mr. Roberts: I have made the position very clear. It is that the 80 per cent. of children in Wales who are not taught through the medium of Welsh will have Welsh as part of their curriculum. Of course, there will be different levels of attainment. The consultation exercise revealed considerable support for our proposals for Wales.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister may wish to have Welsh in the core curriculum, but I am not sure, from his answers, about his enthusiasm for the teaching of Welsh outside the Welsh-medium schools. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Welsh language will be given its proper place in teaching outside the Welsh-medium schools? If the language is to develop and get back to the status that Opposition Members would like to see it have, it must

develop in the English-speaking areas, or we shall land in the barbaric state that some Conservative Members would like to see.

Mr. Roberts: I assure the hon. Member that Welsh will have its place in the curriculum in Wales. We are seeking to meet the diversity of practice in Welsh-speaking schools and the diversity of need for the language.

Enterprise Agencies

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure the future security and success of enterprise agencies in Wales, particularly the Cardiff and Vale enterprise.

Mr. Grist: The success of enterprise agencies in Wales is demonstrated by the 16,000 jobs in small businesses that they have helped to create. The agencies, including Cardiff and Vale enterprise, have benefited from substantial central funding, which continues to be available under the new arrangements introduced last year.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the Minister is aware of reports that the Government intend to put a substantial amount of money into such agencies and that it will be matched by a similar amount from the large banks. Presumably the banks will do that with the intention of obtaining a write-off facility on their contributions. Can the Minister tell us what he knows about that? Is he aware of the report that none of this money will go to Wales? If that is the case, what will the Minister and his colleagues do about that? Does he share the fears of some of us that it might lead to a diminution of the existing secondments by banks, which have made a tremendous contribution to enterprise agencies? In view of the Minister's statement that these agencies are very cost effective in the creation of jobs, does he agree that they provide an ideal model for partnership between local government and private enterprise in our areas?

Mr. Grist: I do, indeed, agree that they are models, not just for local government, but for private industry. Under the new system, local enterprise agencies can receive a grant for five years up to a maximum of £25,000 per annum in the first two years, declining to £10,000 in the fifth year. The grants are conditional on the local enterprise agency producing a satisfactory three-year business plan, a five-year financial strategy aimed at self-sufficiency by year six, and matching £1 for £1 private sector contributions—and of course that is not only banks. Similar but less generous arrangements apply to English local enterprise agencies. In addition to core funding, the Welsh Development Agency will grant up to £17,500 per annum per agency for special projects.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the 15 local enterprise agencies in Wales have assisted in the creation of 16,000 jobs at a very good cost-per-job ratio, it is important that, as his officials have advised, the private sector should become far more substantially involved than hitherto in the local enterprise agencies? Can he tell us what progress has been made in achieving that aim, in more closely monitoring the successes and failures of the local enterprise agencies, and in organising an annual conference in Wales at which the agencies can meet and exchange information and experiences?

Mr. Grist: I am sure that the local enterprise agencies will have heard my hon. Friend's suggestion. It sounds to


me an excellent one. We want to see more private sector involvement in financing and the secondment of more staff—a point that my hon. Friend made some time ago. The private sector connection varies markedly among the different agencies throughout Wales.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

Mr. Roberts: On 8 October 1987 the numbers of persons unemployed in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 8,263, 23,721 and 148,050 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister of State has been going around Wales proclaiming some sort of El Dorado, which exists only in his own imagination. When will he come down to earth and recognise that about 30,000 men have been out of work for more than five years, almost 80,000 for longer than two years and that some 5,000 have given up looking for a job altogether out of sheer despair? Is not this the reality of eight and a half years of Thatcherism in Wales and not the starry-eyed image that he is trying to portray?

Mr. Roberts: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have spared at least a word of welcome for the fall in unemployment. It has been falling for 17 consecutive months. It is now 26,055 down on October 1986, which is a 1·9 per cent. decrease, and in Gwent it is down by 5,142, which is a 3·1 per cent. decrease on October of last year and one of the biggest declines in any county in Wales. Furthermore, there has been a decline of 2,247 in the Newport travel-to-work area. Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes that, and surely he knows that we are doing our very best for the long-term unemployed, through the special employment measures.

Mr. Ray Powell: It is about time that the Minister stopped complaining and came to the Dispatch Box to explain why Opposition Members spread doom and gloom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said, the doom and gloom have been spread by the Government since 1979. Can the Minister understand why we are not all that overjoyed that there is a drop in unemployment? His Government have created the unemployment in Wales since 1979. Is it not time that he looked at the true figures for 1979 and tried to get back to that level, from which he could develop his employment measures? In Ogmore unemployment was 3·5 per cent. in 1979. It is now 18·7 per cent. When the Minister can reduce unemployment to the 1979 level, there will not be so much doom and gloom among Labour Members.

Mr. Roberts: I can never forget 1979 and the hidden unemployment of which we were aware of then and of which the people of England and Wales were very much aware. That is why they elected a Conservative Government to put things right. Our only prospect at that time was deepening unemployment. The United Kingdom economy is fundamentally strong, as was reaffirmed in the Autumn Statement. The provisional figures for industrial

output in Wales are up 2 per cent. in the second quarter and 5 per cent. over the year. We are in our seventh year of successive growth and all the indicators show further improvements to come.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dramatic reduction in unemployment in Wales in the last year, amounting to nearly 23 per cent. in my constituency, was in no small part due to the Government's tremendous success in attracting inward investment, which has increased by 25 per cent. in the past year and now amounts to 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom total? Does he agree that if we are to keep up and improve on that fine record it is essential that the Secretary of State for Wales leads inward investment missions abroad, as he is now doing in Japan?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unemployment in Clwyd has come down by 4,070 in the course of the last year, and that is in no small part due to the existence of five expanding Japanese companies in the area.
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of inward investment to Wales, and, indeed, the importance of my right hon. Friend's mission to Japan. Already we have 88 projects this year, involving 6,000 jobs, as a result of inward investment, and that number is up on the numbers applying to the same period last year and in 1985.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that that so-called dramatic improvement has led to male unemployment in my constituency more than doubling? Yet the Welsh Office, in a typical piece of job destruction, has stopped the Nan Tong cotton mill project, which we had hoped would be launched in my constituency, by refusing adequate money. Will the Minister tell us whether, even at this stage, he is prepared to re-examine that project, which would have brought more than 300 extra jobs to an area that needs them desperately? What is the latest position?

Mr. Roberts: The position relating to the Nan Tong project, which involved expenditure of £25 million for the creation of 300 jobs, was explained by my right hon. Friend on 26 October. Of course we are not complacent about the position in Wales. However, unemployment has been falling for the past 17 months, and in the hon. Gentleman's county of West Glamorgan there has been a fall of 2·4 per cent. over the past year.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of unemployment in Wales has been structural unemployment, caused by the decline in the old manufacturing industries, and that we should welcome the new industries which have come to Wales and which are producing many new jobs?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right. When I referred to the position in 1979, the change in our structure had just begun. The Labour Government had had the experience of closing down the steel mills at Ebbw Vale and Cardiff, but there was far more to come, and that is what the present Government have had to endure. What we have also done, however, is to secure new jobs through inward investment and by encouraging the expansion of businesses that are already in Wales.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister authorise a study to quantify how many young people are forced to leave rural


Wales to seek work in England and elsewhere? This is an immense problem, and I believe that it hides the true unemployment level in Wales.

Mr. Roberts: It was because people were leaving mid-Wales, in particular, that we have encouraged Mid Wales Development in all the efforts that it has made to provide work opportunities there—and, indeed, in rural Wales generally. We have also encouraged the Welsh Development Agency to move into the rural areas, and we look forward to the promotion of businesses in such areas so that we can keep our young people there.

Good Old Age Initiative

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the number and total value of schemes that have now been approved under the good old age initiative.

Mr. Grist: Nine projects with a total estimated value of just under £3·5 million have now been approved under the elderly initiative grant scheme.

Mr. Jones: As £1 million was promised to Wales under the auspices of this scheme, will the Under-Secretary of State explain why there has been such a small take-up in Wales? Will he consider making the balance available to Welsh local authorities on a per capita basis, in accordance with the number of elderly people in each local authority?

Mr. Grist: I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's problem in his island constituency. This scheme began in January 1987. Its purpose was to create original schemes to help the elderly that could be demonstrated to other parts of the Principality. We were looking for originality of schemes. Originality has been the problem with regard to take-up. Nine schemes have been approved so far. We hope that many more schemes will be approved, and we have been urging local authorities to look into the matter.

Wildlife Appeal

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends meeting representatives of conservation groups in Wales to discuss the progress of the Welsh wildlife appeal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet conservation groups to discuss the progress of the Welsh wildlife appeal. I am pleased that the Welsh Office has been able to contribute £10,000 towards the costs of organising the appeal, and of course the Government already give financial support to some of the bodies involved in it.

Mr. Davies: I assure the Minister that that support is very welcome, but I suggest that he should seek a meeting with the conservation groups in Wales to discuss conservation in the Principality. Will he discuss in particular with the conservation groups the threat that is posed to the estuarine environments of south Wales? Three are protected by either national or international accords, but they are threatened by the construction of barrages across them. What assurances or reassurances is the Minister able to give that environmental considerations will he of prime importance either before or during the progress of those schemes?

Mr. Grist: Each scheme will have to be looked at in its own right. Therefore, I cannot give a blanket answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. A meeting with Ministers, or an appeal, is a matter for the organisers. The Government's attitude to conservation cannot be impugned. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 dramatically improved the framework of nature conservation.

Regional Aid

Sir Raymond Gower: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many regional selective assistance and regional development grants have been made or offered for projects in Wales in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In the 12 months to 31 October there have been 153 offers of regional selective assistance, and 1,390 regional development grant approvals.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend able to say how this assistance has been spread across Wales? Has a certain proportion of this assistance gone to those areas in Wales that most need help of this kind?

Mr. Roberts: The assistance and the grants have been spread fairly evenly throughout Wales. As one would expect, special attention has been paid to the highly industrialised areas. However, there has been a fairly even spread, not only across Wales, but as between overseas companies and British or Welsh-based companies.

Mr. Rowlands: If it is such a great success story, will the Minister tell the House how many people were in full-time employment in Wales in 1979, and how many are in full-time employment now?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. More people were in employment in Wales in 1979, but I am also right in saying that at that time there was considerable hidden unemployment. The trend was downwards, and the people of Wales knew it. That is why we were elected. As for the investment to which I have just referred, that involves £104 million in grant, with a total investment of £767 million. Nearly 24,000 new jobs are forecast, and over 2,000 jobs have been safeguarded. That is very different from the position in 1979.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that as unemployment in Wales has risen the Government have reduced the amount of money that is available for regional assistance and the number of areas that qualify for it? Will he also confirm that fewer jobs are available today in Wales than in 1979 and that the increase in employment is explained by the number of people leaving Wales to look for jobs rather than by a real increase in the number of jobs in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman's last point is absolutely wrong. The fact is that unemployment in Wales has been going down for the past 17 months. Wales has had a faster decline in unemployment than almost any other region of the United Kingdom. There is no getting away from those facts.
With regard to regional assistance, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Autumn Statement, regional assistance is due to be increased. I know that the hon. Member for Caernarf


(Mr. Wigley) is arguing with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the figures, but I will leave that argument to them.

Rechem International

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, in the light of Mr. Justice Garland's support for further investigation, he will reconsider his decision not to initiate an inquiry into the activities of Rechem International, Pontypool, Gwent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: No, Sir. I think that the hon. Gentleman mistook the tenor of Mr. Justice Garland's address to the jury. However, as my right hon. Friend has stated, should any new evidence come to light which would warrant further study he would reconsider the position. At present no such evidence has been produced.

Mr. Murphy: In considering that response, has the Minister taken into account the recent explosion and fire at the Rechem plant and the reports surrounding it? Does he agree that he is at variance with the weight of public opinion in Gwent and Torfaen on this matter? When will he realise that the fears and suspicions of the community will be allayed only when a public inquiry is held?

Mr. Grist: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, if new evidence comes to light the position will be reconsidered, but there has been no new evidence. The matter is hotly disputed, and the hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have done little to allay people's fears, probably unwisely.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Private Health Scheme

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what facilities the Church Commissioners offer those on their payroll for contributions to private health schemes to be deducted from their salaries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Commissioners make such deductions for their staff if asked. They are ready to do the same for clergymen, but they are not aware of any widespread demand for this.

Mr. Greenway: Will the Church Commissioners give medical help and assistance to bishops and clergy with specific medical difficulties, including counselling them out of homosexuality where that is a problem, in view of last week's unsatisfactory decision in the Synod?

Mr. Alison: It is not strictly the Church Commissioners' responsibility to provide funds for medical treatment for clergy. However, my hon. Friend's point is less a matter of medical necessity and more one of the proper direction of the human will.

Mr. Frank Field: May I invite the right hon. Gentleman to return to the original question and ask whether he is aware that the Church Commissioners have distributed information about private health schemes with salary cheques? If so, what payment was made to them for that? I do not necessarily expect an answer now, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me or provide a written answer.

Mr. Alison: I understand that in one diocese served by 240 clergy a circular was issued as part of a canvass to discover whether there was any interest in private medical schemes. Only 12 clergy expressed interest when canvassed, and only five eventually joined a preferential scheme. If my answer does not fully meet the hon. Gentleman's points, I will, of course, after studying the question, write to him.

Storm Damage

Mr. Chapman: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if any estimate has been made of the damage to property for which the Church Commissioners are responsible, caused by the hurricane in October.

Mr. Alison: A preliminary assessment of storm damage to the Commissioners' property indicates an estimated cost of some £660,000. Most of this relates to the Commissioners' agricultural estates. About £60,000 worth of damage relates to bishops' houses.

Mr. Chapman: Do the Church Commissioners insure their properties against what I can best describe as "acts of God"? If not, does that not show a certain lack of financial probity? If they do insure their property against "acts of God", does that not show a certain lack of faith?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend seems to impale me on the horns of an awkward dilemma. The answer is that the Church Commissioners are men and women of robust faith, and it is precisely for that reason that we would not seek to circumvent the Divine displeasure via the insurance industry. To do so might incur irreparable damage to that worthy industry.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Historic Churches Preservation Trust has evidence that many millions of pounds worth of damage has been caused to historic churches? I appreciate that that is not a direct responsibility of the commissioners, but is he prepared to join the trust and others, if necessary, in approaching his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for extra assistance to repair those marvellous and irreplaceable buildings?

Mr. Alison: I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend and, without commitment, we shall of course consider whether there is anything in these exceptional circumstances that the Church Commissioners can do to help churches and parishes faced with heavy bills for damage. My hon. Friend will understand that every pound that we contribute towards repairing the fabric of a church necessarily means that a pound is taken away from the stipends of the clergy and the contributions to their pensions. It is our priority to look after the incumbent, the human fabric, but I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Churches (Funds)

Mr. Baldry: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what funding the Church Commissioners have made available in the last year for which figures are available to churches still in active use.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners are not generally empowered to use their funds for churches in use, but they sometimes make grants in individual cases in their capacity as landowners, where they have a chancel repair liability or where they own land in the parish. Such grants amounted to £210,000 in 1986.

Mr. Baldry: Although the human fabric is vital, many of our churches which are in use are of considerable historic, architectural and cultural value and often the parishes are simply too small to support them. Will the Church Commissioners consider whether they can take a lead with English Heritage and other such bodies to see whether they can raise far more money nationally to ensure that these vital parts of our national heritage are preserved for posterity and future generations?

Mr. Alison: I suspect that my hon. Friend may have a constituency interest in his question. I took the trouble to verify whether there might be scope for helping a particular parish church in his constituency where, alas, I find that we have no chancel responsibility and own no land. In certain circumstances the Church Commissioners contribute towards the fabric repair of some churches. I must repeat that funds available for the repair and maintenance of the fabric are, pound for pound, funds taken away from the needs of the human element in our work, which must have the top priority.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that, whatever the Church Commissioners may have spent in the past on funding churches, there has been a momentous announcement that they are to fund to the tune of £1 million a year the re-invigoration of the Church in the inner cities as a contribution to the church urban fund? When the relevant Measure comes before the House, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the House to approve the £1 million a year and support the call to the nation for £18 million, so that much of what is dead in the Church in the inner cities can be brought back to life for the good of the Church and the cities of our nation?

Mr. Alison: I am glad that the hon. Gentlemen has referred to the church urban fund and the £1 million contribution that the Commissioners are hoping to be able to make. I see very little likelihood of the House wishing to impede this perfectly desirable, straightforward and generous response of the Church Commissioners to a manifest need.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To my right hon. Friend's knowledge, have the Church Commissioners considered the possibility of selling their farms to the sitting tenants to raise capital with which they could keep in good repair churches whose parishes are too poor to do so for themselves?

Mr. Alison: I must remind my hon. Friend that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of the fabric of parish churches rests with the congregations of those churches, many of whom, when faced with a particular need, show an extraordinary capacity to raise funds to maintain the fabric, as do the dioceses. It would not be advantageous for the Church Commissioners to liquidate

their capital assets for short-term repair needs, which could probably best be undertaken by the congregations and dioceses involved.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the coalfield areas one danger to the fabric of churches is British Coal's tardiness and in some cases its refusal to make settlements for mining subsidence? Is he further aware that I had to threaten British Coal with a debate in Bolsover church to get negotiations started? Will the Church Commissioners take steps to contact the Philistines at British Coal and ensure that settlements are forthcoming not just for the churches, but for residents in surrounding areas, such as those of Hillstown and Bolsover?

Mr. Alison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to "Philistines", which is the Old Testament term, rather than to "heretics", which is the New Testament term. The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely important issue. I shall be glad to try to help him in relation to Bolsover church, and I give a ready undertaking to see what can be done to press British Coal to expedite and bring to a rapid conclusion any obligations that it may have with regard to subsidence. In my constituency British Coal has generally been fairly rapid in trying to reach settlements with those affected, but I will certainly look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Newspapers

Ms. Abbott: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will take steps to ensure that the Library stocks the Caribbean Times, the Asian Times, the African Times, the Voice, the Gleaner and the New Life newspaper; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I understand that the Library currently takes the African Times, Asian Times and Caribbean Times on a regular basis, and that the Gleaner is taken by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association headquarters. The need for further newspapers is kept under continuous review. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that because of space restrictions and the staff time involved there is a limit to the number of titles taken. I should say, however, that I personally have a great deal of sympathy with the request for the Gleaner and will be adding my representations to those of the hon. Lady.

Ms. Abbott: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Library began to take the African Times, the Asian Times and the Carribean Times only in October this year and that when I first came to the House the Library stocked no minority papers at all? Will he join me in deploring the insensitivity of a Library which stocks magazines for stamp collectors and country landowners, but none reflecting ethnic minority society?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the fault lies with I he Library so much as with those who use it. There was no evident demand for the Library to hold stocks of the papers to which the hon. Lady referred until a request was made last summer by an hon. Member. Once the need was identified, the Library took steps to satisfy it.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to arrange for the Library to stock my favourite journal, which is frequently mentioned by Peter Simple in The Daily Telegraph—the Reactionary Herald and Feudal Times?

Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly see that my hon. Friend's request is heard in the right quarters.

Select Committees

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he has any proposals to change the arrangements for the setting up of Select Committees.

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is totally unacceptable that there should be any kind of Tory veto as to which Labour Members serve on Select Committees, and that it is a form of impertinence to suggest or imply that active members of CND are too disloyal to serve on the Defence Committee? In view of the allegations made in a number of books it is intended to set up a further Select Committee to look into the Westland affair to ascertain who, if anyone, lied, and will the Committee be set up in such a way as to ensure that the civil servants involved can give evidence to it?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has much basis for some of his allegations. Select Committees are set up by the House. The House decides who shall serve on them. Every Member is entitled to express a view, but in the end Select Committees are set up by a decision of the House.

Mr. Higgins: They have not yet been set up, but under the present arrangements some Select Committees have been concerned with proposals to increase the resources going to the European Community. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Wednesday's debate will not pre-empt a decision and that the Committee will be given time to look into the matter before a final decision is taken?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I can give my right hon. Friend the undertaking that he wants, but I shall see to it that Select Committees are set up as soon as possible.

Mineral Waters

Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in selecting British mineral waters for the House; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand that the Refreshment Department has recently organised a series of tastings of British mineral and spring waters and will be making proposals to the appropriate Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. A decision will be taken when that Sub-Committee has had an opportunity to consider the matter.

Mr. Steen: The House owes a good deal of gratitude to the Chairman of the Services Committee and his excellent staff for giving the House a chance to taste more than 50 commercial mineral waters from all over Britain. When the Services Committee makes its final decision about which English, Scottish and Welsh waters are to be drunk

in the House, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the foreign waters currently drunk in the House are expelled from the list? I understand that foreign water was not part of the original water that was tasted by the water tasting Committee, which tasted only British water.

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly hope that in any tasting of British water, there was only British water to taste. These are weighty matters, which will be dealt with ably by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee that deals with refreshments once it gets going.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the absence of Epping Forest water, Exmoor water, which is extremely good, was tasted?

Mr. Wakeham: I hear from hon. Friends behind me that it was.

Select Committees

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what progress is being made with the establishment of Select Committees.

Mr. Wakeham: Motions on behalf of the Committee of Selection proposing the membership of all 14 departmental Select Committees are at present on the Order Paper. I hope that all the departmental Select Committees will soon be re-established.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the situation for Scotland and Wales this year is totally grotesque? The House should ensure that the Committees on Wales and Scotland reflect the membership of the House in Wales and Scotland. That happens in the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. As reports come back to the Floor of the House, and before any action can be taken on them, is there anything unreasonable in moving such a proposal?

Mr. Wakeham: The Committee of Selection includes a representative from the minority parties. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that motions tabled by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection are amendable, that hon. Members of any party may object to them, and that, if necessary, a full debate may take place to resolve any issues.

Mr. Sims: My right hon. Friend will recall our recent exchange of correspondence in which I drew attention to the burden on the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee and suggested that it was unable to give adequate consideration to scientific matters. At the time he was unable to support my proposals to set up a Select Committee on Science and Technology, but, in the light of the support given to that idea by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will he reconsider his decision before these matters are finalised?

Mr. Wakeham: The disbandment of the former Select Committee on Science and Technology was part of a package adopted by the House when the present comprehensive system for departmental Select Committees was established in 1979. The structure of our Select Committee system is always a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is unacceptable for Tory Members or, worse, officials


from the Ministry of Defence, to suggest that certain Labour Members are unfit to serve on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee because they might be security risks? Does he also agree that history shows that if officials at the Ministry of Defence are concerned about people who betray their country, they should look not at the ranks of the Labour party but at the public school boys who support the Establishment?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I know of no statement from the Ministry of Defence about Select Committees. Every hon. Member is perfectly entitled to have a view as to who are the right and best people to serve on any Select Committee. That is why the House will eventually decide the membership.

Haemophiliacs (Financial Assistance)

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about haemophiliacs who have become infected with the AIDS virus as a result of treatment with infected blood products. I should explain that I am doing so in the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is unwell.
As the House knows, the position under successive Governments has been that, while compensation may be sought through the courts if there is a question of negligence, there is no state scheme of "no fault" compensation for those damaged by medical treatment.
The Haemophilia Society has, however, put to us a powerful case that the position of haemophiliacs is wholly exceptional and should be treated as such. Their employment prospects and insurance status were already affected by the haemophilia itself. The treatment that led to their infection was designed to help them to live as near a normal life as possible. The hereditary nature of haemophilia can, and in some cases does, mean that more than one member of the same family may be affected.
The Government, having considered all the circumstances, have concluded that it would be right to recognise the unique position of haemophiliacs infected with this virus. We therefore propose to make an ex-gratia grant of £10 million to the Haemophilia Society to enable it to establish a special trust fund. It will be able to make payments to the affected individuals and families throughout the United Kingdom, and to do so with greater flexibility than could readily be achieved in any other way.
The House will wish to know that we have put this proposal to the society, which has welcomed it warmly. The society has asked for advice and assistance in administering the fund, which we have gladly agreed to arrange.
The grant of £10 million is being made from the reserve. When the full details of the grant and trust fund have been settled there will be an exchange of letters with the society. I will arrange for copies to be put in the Library.
I know that the whole House wishes to express its sympathy to the individuals and families who have been affected in this tragic way. I hope that the whole House will welcome this action to translate that sympathy into practical help.

Mr. Robin Cook: First, will the Minister convey my good wishes to the Secretary of State and the hope that it will not be long before he returns to the Dispatch Box, where I have a number of unfinished arguments to settle with him?
Every hon. Member who attended last month's lobby and who witnessed the courage and restraint of the representative of affected haemophiliacs will welcome the statement that the Government have a duty to help affected haemophiliacs because they were infected by the Health Service to which they had come for treatment. The Minister's conversion is all the more welcome because it reverses the position, which he had been maintaining only six months ago, that the Government had no such duty. He will appreciate that, having recognised that in principle he has a duty to help those infected, he must not now short-change them.
Will the Minister explain how he has costed the fund and come up with £10 million, or was it a convenient round figure? Is he aware that, per head, it represents just over £8,000 for every person infected and that that is less than half the capital sum that is paid by his Department in cases of vaccine damage? Is he satisfied that such a modest sum is enough, particularly when the most pressing need for the families of the victims is to keep a roof over their heads by clearing a mortgage?
As the Minister has appointed the Haemophilia Society as the agent for the scheme, will he undertake to review with it the size of the fund? Would it not be unfair to put the society in the false position of being responsible for the scheme without providing the resources that it finds necessary?
Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn the ill-informed and unfeeling discrimination against haemophiliacs who are antibody positive, who have frequently lost their jobs, in some cases lost private tenancies, and in nearly all cases involving children who have encountered prejudice at school? No amount of money can compensate for the humiliation of such prejudice.
Will the Minister associate himself with the remarks of the chief medical officer at the weekend that no case has been recorded in the world of AIDS being transmitted from doctor to patient? Will he take this opportunity to join me in regretting the latest sensationalist campaign of the tabloids publicly to name the doctor, which increases public anxiety and can only encourage further discrimination against those who are antibody positive, whether haemophiliacs or not?

Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Secretary of State, and I shall certainly pass them on to him.
On a number of occasions I have commented on the difficulty of a compensation scheme. This is not a compensation scheme. That must be made clear. It is a recognition of a special and unique combination of circumstances, and I am glad to make that recognition.
On a matter of the £10 million, we arrived at a broad estimate of a sum that we felt would give significant help to the group affected, recognising that to calculate in terms of a specific sum per individual would not take account of the great differences between the circumstances of the individuals affected. That is one reason why we have not attempted to have a regulated scheme. For example, some may be young single men, others may be older men with families, and so on. On that basis we have arrived at this sum and this flexibility of scheme.
The Haemophilia Society will not, in effect, be acting as the Government's agent. It will be up to the society to decide how to administer the £10 million. I must make it clear that we will make this sum of money available to the society at once and in full as soon as the arrangements can be made. Disbursement will necessarily take place over a longer period, and the trust will have the benefit of the income from whatever capital remains at any point in time, which on that sum will increase significantly the total resources available.
I wish to associate myself wholly with the remarks about discrimination against haemophiliacs and their children, or haemophiliacs themselves, wherever and whenever it may occur, because of infection with the virus. I welcome the opportunity to do that.
In respect of the chief medical officer's remarks over the weekend and on previous occasions, it is my view that the maintenance of confidentiality in these matters is absolutely essential to the effective safeguarding of the public. If confidentiality is in question, people who might otherwise be a risk will be less inclined to come forward and take advice that may minimise that risk. It is important that that should be understood.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome statement. Is he aware that the campaign by Back Benchers of all parties, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) played a particular part, shows the House of Commons at its best? We were all deeply moved by the tragedy of two wholly innocent victims of this appalling disease, and we worked together to achieve justice for them. We are truly grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the fact that they have listened and acted. However, is my hon. Friend aware that it may be necessary for us to approach him again in order to assist this finite number of victims, in the knowledge that he and his right hon. Friend will once again respond sympathetically?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks; I note his final observation.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the Minister for his statement, and my gratitude will be echoed by those people in north Wales who have made representations to him on this matter.
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a couple of points? As he has emphasised that this is not compensation, will he say whether consideration is still being given to the principle of compensation? Will he confirm that it in no way debars any individual from going to court if he so wishes? Will he give an assurance that he will seek additional resources if it transpires that the demand for help from this fund is greater than it appears at present?

Mr. Newton: We have shown our general willingness to consider the circumstances of cases that have been put before us. That has been amply demonstrated by my statement. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is no way in which this statement, or any other, can prevent individuals from taking legal action for compensation on the grounds of negligence, and I certainly would not seek to do so. The hon. Gentleman made a third point, but I am afraid that I have forgotten it.

Mr. Wigley: It was about adequate funds.

Mr. Newton: I have commented on that and expressed our willingness to consider cases.

Mr. Robert Key: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. If the House has been seen at its best in persuading the Government, the Government have been seen at their best in responding swiftly to the perceived need. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the door is still open for discussions with the Haemophilia Society on the administration of existing benefits, in addition to those available from this special fund, particularly with regard to how confidentiality can be preserved in applying for them and how those who have to adjudicate — particularly on appeals for attendance allowance—could possibly be helped by circulars from his Department?

Mr. Newton: I am conscious of the important role that my hon. Friend has played in representing the interests of

the Haemophilia Society. As to confidentiality, normally all information given to social security officers in respect of claims is confidential. If there are some additional anxieties—I understand that there are, or may be, some—we should be glad to discuss them with the society. In general, we shall be seeking to make available to the society, in conjunction with the new trust fund and on any other matter that may concern it, the best possible advice that we can make available, and we shall seek to work closely with it.
As to the attendance allowance, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are particular problems that go much wider than the cases that we are discussing over the payment of attendance allowance for short periods. I cannot undertake that they can readily be resolved in this context.

Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate the Minister on his statement, on acting so swiftly, on drawing the funds from the Treasury and, not least, on persuading the Haemophilia Society to accept the terms. What will the Government's response be if individual members of the society say that the terms of the settlement are unsatisfactory? Will sums from the fund be completely disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes?

Mr. Newton: The issue of how to administer the fund will be a matter for the Haemophilia Society. I do not envisage a system of appeal to Ministers or to some other tribunal, which would be possible only under a statutory scheme.
Such a system would destroy the merit of flexibility and individuality, which we perceive as the main merits of the proposal.
As to the supplementary benefit scheme, or its successor from April 1988, the income support scheme, which will have different capital rules, one of the matters that the society will wish to consider in administering the fund is the interaction between payments and the social security system in general. That is a matter on which we shall seek to give the best possible advice.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my hon. Friend clarify two matters? First, will the Haemophilia Society be able to make payments from the £10 million capital, bearing in mind that there will be a decreasing commitment? Secondly, the question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was not adequately answered. Will payments made out of the fund by the society be disregarded, for both taxation and social security purposes? It is clear that they should be. It is within the Minister's power, or that of my right hon. Friend, to ensure that, in terms of regulations, they are counted as disregards.

Mr. Newton: Of course the trust will be able to make payments out of the capital. When I referred to the income, I was simply saying that it is unlikely that all the capital will be disbursed in the early period, because, unfortunately and tragically, the problem is still gathering ground. However, the trust will be able to make payments of capital from the fund.
On the second question, it is not possible to generalise, because this will depend upon the nature, for example, of the payments and the purposes for which they are made. I note carefully the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. This is clearly a matter that can be covered in our further conversations with the Haemophilia Society.

Ms. Clare Short: I welcome the Minister's undertaking to review the total sum available. No recompense can be made for the harm done to these families by the Health Service because blood was imported from the United States of America when we should have relied upon our own and much better blood products. Is the Minister willing to give similar consideration to those who are not haemophiliacs but who were damaged in a similar way? An example is the woman with four children who was given a blood transfusion when she was expecting her fourth child. This woman now has AIDS, is alone and poor, is on supplementary benefit, is dying and is terrified about the future of her children. Will she be given some help as well?

Mr. Newton: Our present view is that the combination of circumstances affecting haemophiliacs infected by the AIDS virus, along the lines that I described in my statement in reporting what the Haemophilia Society said to us, makes theirs a unique and exceptional case, and we feel that it is right to treat it in that way.

Mr. John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all those hon. Members who attended the recent extremely moving meeting at the House of Commons with the Haemophilia Society? Is he aware that at that meeting evidence was given to hon. Members of the terrible barriers experienced by AIDS victims when they try to obtain mortgages or insurance cover? Will he use his influence with the organisations concerned to try to remove those barriers, so that these tragic victims can live as normal lives as possible?

Mr. Newton: I am anxious to do anything that I can to assist in whatever way possible. One of the things that we have in mind for the trust fund and for its application is that it might be able to assist individuals to overcome such problems.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Minister use his influence with the Secretary of State for Scotland so that funds are provided for centres in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are funded only by local health authorities and which need cash immediately?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to that.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I add my thanks for the statement? I am sad that it was not possible for the Secretary of State to make the statement, and I hope that he will be fully recovered soon.
If the society wishes, will it be possible for a permanent adviser to the trust to be appointed by my hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Newton: If that proposal were put to us by the society, we should certainly consider it. We have already made it absolutely clear in conversations with the society that the Department will provide whatever advice it needs. The only point at which I would cavil is whether such an adviser would need to be permanent, but that is something about which we can talk.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I thank the Minister for his statement, which I welcome. He was at great pains to say that this is not compensation, but I, with many others, will regard it as such. We should not be worried about that, because the system under which one must prove negligence before one can have compensation

is time-consuming, expensive and in no one's interest. Will the Minister have discussions with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is responsible for health in Scotland, who wrote to me on 30 October turning down my request for a scheme of compensation for haemophiliacs, to tell him that he has been overruled, and to explain why he has been overruled?

Mr. Newton: I do not propose to adopt such an aggressive line with the House or with any of my colleagues. Nor will I engage in further argument, which some might regard as merely semantic, about what is or is not compensation. Legally, this is not a compensation scheme—no more than the vaccine damage payment scheme was a compensation scheme. About 10 years ago the Pearson committee—this is the point that I failed to pick up from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—examined these issues carefully and came out against no fault compensation in respect of medical accidents. The question raises issues that are much wider than those that we are discussing today.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although his statement will be greatly welcomed, not only by the victims but by those who care for them, he must ensure that disbursements from the trust fund are made as soon as possible, because many victims have been suffering severe financial difficulty for some time.

Mr. Newton: Just as we made our decision within a fortnight of meeting representatives of the Haemophilia Society, so we hope to get the trust into operation and the money paid as early as possible. I hope that that means weeks, not months.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister may know that several families in my constituency have communicated their distress to me. Does he understand that the recent all-party meeting in the House was one of the most compelling and effective ever held here? Although I thank the Minister for his statement, will he urgently consider revising upwards the money on offer?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have said. This is an adequate and proper sum, which has been warmly welcomed by the society. We have shown continually that we are willing to consider any proper cases that are put to us.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that this measure will be warmly welcomed in the north of England, especially by the many bodies which have campaigned on this issue, led by the Northern Echo? Will he assure the House that the money is coming from the Treasury, not from the DHSS funds? Will it go to the widows and orphans of those who have already died from this lamentable condition?

Mr. Newton: I am conscious of the feeling about this in northern England, not least because, somewhat unexpectedly, about six or seven months ago I was interviewed on the subject by the Northern Echo. It will be open to the trust to make available money to the widows and other dependants of those who, unhappily, have died from this infection.

Mr. David Young: Although the House is gratified that a speedy decision was made, as the Minister said, the problem is still gathering. Many of us


believe that, against that gathering problem, if the statement were taken as the final word it would be rather Scrooge-like. Will the Minister's insistence that this is not compensation be used by Departments to argue against benefit cases that will be affected by compensation? Will he review the amount given as the position becomes clearer during the next few months?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman implied in his question, it is difficult to be sure exactly what the scale of the problem will be. With haemophiliacs, as with others infected with the virus, we do not know how many will contract full-blown AIDS. The range of issues in respect of AIDS are being examined continually as our information improves.
On the other parts of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said on earlier occasions.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend in a position to say that there are no circumstances which a haemophiliac can be adversely affected if treated by a doctor with AIDS?

Mr. Newton: As I think has been made quite clear, there is no evidence of patients of any sort—haemophiliacs or others—being infected in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. William McKelvey: I welcome the Minister's statement, which represents a change of heart by the Government. I recognise the point made about an ex-gratia payment and the fact that the Minister has not said that the door is closed for an increased advance payment of the ex-gratia payment. However, can the Minister assure the House that there will be no technical difficulties in payments being made to patients who live north of the border?

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman studies the text of my statement he will find that the words "throughout the United Kingdom" were included. They were specifically intended to include, among other places, areas north of the border.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: While warmly welcoming the speed, scope and compassion of the Government's response to the problem, may I ask my hon. Friend two questions that go back to the original cause of the tragedy—the importation of contaminated blood supplies from United States drug companies? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the public that any further imported blood supplies will be tested to ensure that no contamination of this kind can possibly occur again?
Secondly, on a legal point, as we all understand that AIDS victims who are haemophiliacs cannot possibly afford to take any legal action, will my hon. Friend speak to the Law Officers to see whether Government-funded legal action might be taken against the drug companies, which might result in substantial damages of the kind that could amount to some welcome extra funding for the Haemophilia Society's trust fund?

Mr. Newton: I shall draw the latter suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. No doubt the Haemophilia Society will also note it.
Imported — and home-produced — blood products have been heat treated for the past two years and more, and we are confident that everything that can conceivably

be done—in a world in which absolute guarantees cannot be given—has been done to ensure the safety of blood supplies of all types. It is therefore unlikely in the extreme that any further cases of infection will occur in this way.
As a result of the major investment in the new blood products laboratory at Elstree, it is hoped that this country will become self-sufficient in blood products by the year after next.

Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours: Are not the Government really ducking the whole issue of proper compensation? Is not an average of only £8,300 insignificant when one considers the scale of the problem? Why have successive Governments refused properly to examine the subject of no fault compensation? Will a whole group of people once again not be compensated, when what is wrong with them derives directly from a deficiency in hospital operations?

Mr. Newton: I cannot deal properly with the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question without ranging over the whole ground of the Pearson report. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at it so as to understand the reasons for the position adopted, as he says, by successive Governments.
With regard to the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall not repeat what I said earlier, but I am mildly disturbed that the hon. Gentleman's response is so much less generous than that of the Haemophilia Society.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the Minister's statement, but I believe that the sum is less than adequate. Will the Minister give an assurance that if that proves to be the case, the sum is reviewable and that he will report to the House in, say, three months on the operation of this scheme?
If a person an these unique circumstances is in receipt of supplementary benefit and receives a sum of money in excess of £3,000 before April, will he or she not be denied certain amounts of money paid to him or her by way of supplementary benefit?

Mr. Newton: I have already said in response to earlier questions that a considerable amount will depend on the way in which the payments are made. We shall seek to ensure that the society has the best available advice.
With regard to the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have made it clear, and will say it again, that we have looked at the case that has been presented to us. We believe that this is a proper sum, but of course we will not be closed to representations that might be made at a later stage. Reporting will be primarily a matter for the Haemophilia Society under the arrangements that I have proposed, but I shall consider whether there is an appropriate way in wich I can make available some sort of report to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I add my warm thanks to the Minister for the statement and the way in which action has been taken so speedily. We note that he has left he door open, because, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said, we are dealing with a finite group of people; a group which by definition, from the Minister's other answers, cannot alter in any way. It cannot grow. This cannot happen again.
Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that a non-statutory scheme funded by an ex-gratia payment means


that there will be no accountability to the House for the operation of the scheme? There will be no questions or appeals—nothing at all. Therefore, it is crucial that we settle this once and for all, and here and now. Does the Minister accept that neither the public nor the House would want any of that money to find its way back to the Treasury via the tax system, or to his own Department, via clawback? Does the Minister further accept that the issue of interaction should not even operate? We can disregard attendance allowance and mobility allowance, so technically it is easier to deal with the matter. Why cannot the Minister say that now?

Mr. Newton: Because there are a number of issues, especially in view of the speed with which we have acted, as the hon. Gentleman said, that need further consideration. I note the points that have been raised on both sides of the House today.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, the flexibility that goes with the scheme has certain disadvantages of the type that he outlined. I can say only that, having given a great deal of thought to the matter over some months, I am convinced that the basic nature of what we propose is by far and away the most sensible and satisfactory way of providing flexible help to those who need it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome this important gesture by the Government, but the Minister must be aware that he has put a heavy burden of responsibility on the Haemophilia Society. Will he give an undertaking that it will be possible for either himself as Minister, or the House, to return to the subject to consider further the possibility of increasing the funds or the practical back-up that will be available to the society in future?

Mr. Newton: On the basis of some years' experience, I have never found it possible to prevent the House from returning to a subject if it wished to do so.

Mr. Graham Allen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask a question on the statement? He was not rising during questions on the statement.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the statement?

Mr. Allen: I was present throughout the statement.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury has assessed the net cost of the scheme? Is it less than £10 million?

Mr. Newton: I have no reason to suppose that the net cost will be less. We certainly do not think that it will be intended to be less than the £10 million. The position is that £10 million has been made available from the reserve.
Several questions were raised this afternoon. Hon. Members were right to raise them and we shall consider them. No doubt such questions will be raised with us by the Haemophilia Society, but I cannot say more than that today.

The Grove Hospital, Ilkley

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed emergency closure of The Grove hospital, Ilkley.
One quarter of National Health Service convalescent beds are located there.
The matter is urgent because, at its meeting tomorrow, the Leeds Western health authority will have before it a proposal to close The Grove almost immediately as an emergency measure and as part of a package intended to deal with overspending of £800,000 in this financial year. The community health council has strongly opposed the closure and at its meeting last month, the health authority failed only narrowly by seven votes to five to throw out the closure proposal, but also resolved to consider fresh alternatives.
The reason why the House should discuss the matter is that a decision to accept an emergency closure at a time when the statutory procedures are in midstream would effectively tie the hands of Ministers, who can hardly consider objectively the future of a hospital, the doors of which have closed and the staff of which have been dispersed.
The matter is specific and important because on 7 April this year my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said in answer to a question from me in the House:
Should there be objections from the relevant quarters
—and there have been—the proposals
would come to Ministers to determine".—[Official Report, 7 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 147.]
However, everyone realises that if the hospital were to be closed now, before the statutory procedures are completed and before objectors have even had a chance to put forward alternatives, the involvement of Ministers would be a parody of what Parliament intended. Such a move would subvert the democratic processes under which we operate and, by doing so, would undermine public confidence in the processes laid down by Parliament to ensure that the viewpoints of all concerned can be given full weight.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed emergency closure of The Grove hospital, Ilkley.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that the matter that he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you look at what happened on the Third Reading of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill last week? As I understand it, no Privy Councillor moved the motion on Queen's consent during the process of Third Reading. If that is so, there is some


doubt about the validity of Third Reading. According to page 1038 of "Erskine May", if Queen's consent is not indicated on Third Reading, that Third Reading is not valid. I gather that that happened in about 1851 on a railways Bill, which had to return for a further Third Reading. There was one other precedent when a Bill went to the other place, having not received Queen's consent. It made some progress there before the mistake was found. A different course of action was taken.
I hope that you will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker, because it was a controversial issue. I should think that if Queen's consent has not been given properly, the matter should come back to the House to be resolved.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Question Time

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, question hour is a cherished, if limited, period in which Back Benchers can question Cabinet Ministers. The session on Welsh questions lasts only 35 minutes, so I should like to ask for your help with a problem, because, although it may not be immediately apparent, some Ministers try to pay attention during your judgments.
You will have noticed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Wales was not present on what would have been only his third opportunity to be questioned by Welsh Members since his appointment. As 30 of the 38 hon. Members representing Wales are on the Opposition Benches, and as the Secretary of State does not represent a Welsh seat, it is particularly important that he should be here to be made aware of Welsh problems. We understand that he is in Japan, and we wish him well on his mission, but three weeks elapse between each session of Welsh questions. The right hon. Gentleman could have gone to Japan in the three weeks either before or after today. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of

Back-Bench interests, to say whether you would expect Cabinet Ministers to make every effort to be present, when their Department is due to answer questions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not intolerable that the House should have to listen to the incompetent blatherings of the third choice for shadow Secretary of State—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can best deal with the matter. I received a letter from the Secretary of State saying that he could not be present at Question Time today. I note what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, but it is not up to me to demand that anyone be present in the Chamber.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Bulgaria) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) (No. 2) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Nigeria) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Pakistan) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belgium) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matter of Economic, Industrial and Commercial Development of Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put an I agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Immigration Bill

Order for Second Reading read

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill amends the Immigration Act 1971 in a number of necessary ways, but it leaves that Act as the foundation of our system of immigration control. The 1971 Act was the first comprehensive immigration statute and established a new system of immigration control for both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens. It sought to bring primary immigration by heads of households down to a level which our crowded island could accommodate. The Act was introduced in the belief that there is a limit to the extent to which a society can accept large numbers of people from different cultures without unacceptable social tensions. That remains our view. It is not an anti-immigrant view; it is a realistic view.
It would not be in the interests of the ethnic minorities themselves if there were a prospect of further mass inward movement. That prospect would increase social tensions, particularly in our cities. That is why we say that firm immigration control is essential if we are to have good community relations. Since the 1971 Act, mass primary immigration has, indeed, ended, but we need to keep immigration control in good repair. As right hon. and hon. Members know, there is discretion and room for compassion in individual cases, and my hon. Friend and I exercise that discretion and compassion provided—and only provided—that the framework can be kept firm.
I doubt whether any change in immigration law will ever be free from controversy, but we bring forward the proposals in the Bill calmly and dispassionately. I hope that they can be examined in the House in that spirit. It is no part of our approach to raise the public temperature on these issues.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we could have taken a combative stance on this matter during the election campaign, but we deliberately refrained from doing so.

Ms. Clare Short: What about the letter?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Lady thinks that my letter to Mr. Merchant—if that is the letter that she means—was

combative, she has a remarkably low temperature on such matters. It was a low-key, realistic attempt to reply to inquiries about what we had in mind.

Ms. Short: I agree that the tone of the letter was not combative. My point is that the letter was written during the election campaign, thus bringing into that campaign promises of further immigration restrictions. The Home Secretary knows that very well.

Mr. Hurd: It was written because I happened to go to a meeting in Newcastle with leaders of the ethnic minorities in that city. They asked me whether I could find an opportunity to make plain the limited nature of what we had in mind. That is precisely what I did and I am glad that the hon. Lady acknowledges that it had that effect and struck the right note.
People who have arrived here in the past 40 years are varying and enriching our way of life, as earlier arrivals did before them, but new settlement has to be strictly limited. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of people coming here for settlement fell from 70,000 to 55,000. The figure for 1986 was even lower at 47,000, but there were special factors in that year following the rule changes in 1985 and a change of practice in right-of-abode cases. I do not seek to make a party point about the fall in settlement figures.
I think and hope that there is a broad political consensus that the days of unrestricted primary immigration are over. We shall continue to differ on questions of degree, but nearly all of us share a public commitment to firm but fair controls on immigration. The Bill gives further evidence of our determination to carry that commitment through in practice. However, if we are to maintain a firm immigration control we must be able to react to new demands and developments.
The immigration control system is under considerable pressure. I pay tribute to the immigration service, to the departmental staff at Croydon and to our posts overseas for the way in which they cope with the ever-increasing burden of work. Traffic through our airports and seaports rises inexorably. Last year there were 39 million passenger arrivals. There are also the pressures, which we share with other European countries, arising from the increasing number of asylum applicants. In responding to these pressures, we must be able to react quickly and effectively, and we have done so.
A year ago we extended visa controls to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and later to Ghana and Nigeria, in response to the scenes at our airports as large numbers of people arrived claiming that they were coming for a visit, and requiring careful examination.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that we have fewer political asylum applications per head of the population than any other industrial country, that there are fewer acceptances and that because of the attitude of the Home Office the general atmosphere in which anyone seeking political asylum in Britain is surrounded is one of unremitting hostility bordering on racism?

Mr. Hurd: I made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I am not talking about asylum applications and the Bill is not concerned with them. He knows that perfectly well. He deals with a subject which we have discussed often. We are discharging our obligations under the 1951 convention. The fact that there are fewer bogus


asylum applications here than in some other countries is not a reason for relaxing our stance. The interpretation was before the House of Lords and we await its judgment. I have nothing further to say on that matter at the moment.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary confirm that, since the introduction of the visa system, the refusal rate has more than doubled and that, therefore, in the past 12 months something like 20,000 men, women and children were refused visits? Will he also take the opportunity to deny rumours that he will introduce a maximum of six months for visitors seeking visas to enter the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's second point in a moment. I cannot give the figures for refusals, but what has happened is that the procedure that used to take place, sometimes in circumstances of confusion and long delay at the airports and seaports, is now taking place overseas. It remains true that 90 per cent. of all visa applications are dealt with overseas within 24 hours of their being received. That is a remarkable record.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I assure my right hon. Friend that in my constituency the procedure is working very well and that in the few cases where there have been problems his office has been most helpful.

Mr. Hurd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that.
The carriers' legislation is another example of where we needed to move rapidly to maintain the effectiveness of the control. We did that and it had that effect. The measures on visas and carriers were both controversial at the time. I notice that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is present. Many epithets were hurled at us, but in both cases to a large extent the controversy has died away because the new system works better than the old.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: rose—

Mr. Keith Vaz: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I will get on with my statement. I have gained some encouragement from those experiences. We will have to go on watching carefully all aspects of the immigration control arrangements to make sure that they are efficient and that unacceptable pressures do not pile up.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he rises in a minute or two.
Before I deal with the provisions in the Bill, I will, for the convenience of the House, deal with two matters related to what I said about the need to maintain an efficient control. One matter has already been raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I announced today our intention to bring forward a number of changes to the immigration rules relating to after-entry control. The immigration department has to consider applications for an extension or variation to stay from people admitted as visitors, students, business men and some other categories. The demands of that work have grown to the extent that, for many years, the department has suffered a serious backlog. At the end of 1986, it amounted to some 47,000 cases, or the equivalent of some four months' work. As hon. Members know, many delays

are much worse than that. Matters cannot be left as they are. From everyone's point of view, the pressure must be eased.
At present, a person is granted several periods of leave, which together add up to the maximum allowed in any one particular category. I now propose to introduce rule changes for au pairs, business men and certain others to provide that longer periods of leave up to the maxima, which will not be changed, may be granted on arrival. That will follow careful scrutiny to establish that the applicant meets the criteria laid down in the rules. I have already taken administrative action within the present rules to ensure that all genuine students are admitted for the full duration of their courses. Those steps will remove the need in many cases for people to apply to Lunar house for purely routine extensions of their stay. Every pointless bit of paper that we can do away with reduces the delays for others.

Mr. McCrindle: I am sorry to take my right hon. Friend back to the point that he was making when I originally tried to intervene, but he was suggesting that, in his view, a good deal of controversy has disappeared since the introduction of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 a few months ago. Will he accept that, among the carriers, there continues to be a considerable controversy and opposition to the operation of those immigration controls, particularly as regards detention costs. Does he plan to say anything about that, or is there any part of the Bill that might begin to iron out the difficulties that appear to be developing between Home Office officials and the airlines?

Mr. Hurd: The Bill does not cover that point. If my hon. Friend would like to give me the particulars of his concern, I will certainly look into them.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman, even in his most ebullient and expansive moments, surely does not expect me to range over every conceivable aspect of the immigration controls. He may want to intervene later.
I also propose to reduce the maximum period of a visit to six months, which I believe is the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. I will explain why. At present, the rules allow for a visit of 12 months, but most visitors come here for much shorter periods. A substantial number are admitted at first for less that six months, and then apply to have their permitted stay extended. Those applications give rise to work at Lunar house. Very few of them are refused. Once again, there are many pointless bits of paper clogging up the system. The application for an extension often takes longer to process than the time requested, which is absurd.
In future, I intend that, with few exceptions, visitors should be admitted for six months, rather than a shorter period, and that that should be the maximum period for a visit. That will simplify the process, reduce the work at Lunar house, and enable us to concentrate more effectively and speedily on those cases where important decisions have to be made. A maximum visit of six months or less is already common practice in other countries. Most European countries require visas for any visit longer than 90 days. There will be an opportunity to debate the rule changes when they are laid before the House.

Mr. John Fraser: It is commonplace for the entry certificate officer in Kingston, Jamaica to refuse


applications for people to come here to visit if they say that they want to come for six months. They are normally refused on the ground that, if they want to come here for six months, they may want to stay for good. Can the Home Secretary assure us that there will be no discrimination against people from the Caribbean who apply to come for six months under the new, relaxed rules?

Mr. Hurd: I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. Certainly nothing that I have announced will affect that, for the reasons that I have already given.

Mr. Vaz: Rather than limit the length of stay for a visitor, is not the most appropriate course to provide more resources for Lunar house, such as the staff who were promised when the visa changes were announced last year?

Mr. Hurd: There has been a build-up of resources available to immigration control. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will give particulars when he replies. However, I do not think that that is an argument against getting rid of the pointless bits of paper that I have been referring to.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Can my right hon. Friend give us any reassurance about effective systems for follow-up? One our great concerns is people who come in on one pretext and abuse that, but are not located and invited to leave when the original term expires. Can he reassure the House that a much tighter and effective system of follow-up will be put in place?

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to the question of overstaying. My hon. Friend is on to a familiar point, which raises the useful deployment of services and whether it would be sensible to go to the enormous expense of providing a comprehensive exit control. I accept the need to stiffen the arrangements and, as he knows, to a large extent, that is happening.

Mr. Ron Leighton: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I will now get on.
The intention of the changes that I have announced so far is to produce a better customer service and a tighter immigration control. The main beneficiaries of my announcements will be those who at present suffer from delays, and right hon. and hon. Members who chastise us because of those delays, which the proposals are principally aimed to reduce.
Let me now deal with the procedures under which hon. Members take up immigration cases with me or with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I do not believe that many hon. Members find the present arrangements satisfactory. The enormous number of cases imposes considerable burdens not only on my hon. Friend, but also on the hon. Members concerned, and often results in lengthy delays. Ministers are put in the position of having to examine straightforward and routine cases for which a statutory appeals system exists. I hope that new arrangements can be found which will better achieve the objective of providing a service to hon. Members and their constituents without detracting from the proper exercise of ministerial responsibility.
At the same time, I believe that it would be right to review the arrangements for dealing with hon. Members' interventions—particularly "stops" in port cases—that

have been operating over the past 12 months. I want to hear the views of all hon. Members on both issues, and I shall shortly be writing to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with a number of proposals. I am making no proposals today, but simply signalling that we wish to open up the subject.
Clause 1 of the Bill repeals section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, which sought to preserve the position of British and other Commonwealth citizen men settled here at the time of the 1971 Act, and their wives and children, so that they could not be adversely affected by subsequent rule changes. The terms of section 1(5) are very wide. They apply to all British and other Commonwealth citizen men and boys, whether black, white or brown, who were born before 1973 and settled here when the Act came into force. The main effect is that the wives and children of those covered by section 1(5) are able to come here without having to meet the marriage tests in the immigration rules, and without having to meet the requirement that there must be adequate financial support and accommodation for them without recourse to public funds.
Fourteen years have passed since section 1(5) came into effect. It is not confined to adult men living here before 1972, their wives at that time and their children at that time. I want to emphasise that. If section 1(5) continues in force, it will have effect well into the next century on those who were settled here as boys before 1973 when they marry and have children. It has also been objected to on the ground that it confers benefits on wives and not on husbands. Following the Abdulaziz case at the European Court of Human Rights, the Government gave a commitment to end that element of sex discrimination.
Section 1(5) gives rise to anomalies and unacceptable results. Let us take the example of a family with a daughter, a son born in 1972 and a son born in 1973. If they all marry abroad and apply to bring their spouses here, the application from the wife of the elder son will fall to be dealt with on a different basis from that applying to the husband of his sister or the wife of his younger brother. Such a result cannot be right. To take a further—and actual—example, in the recent case of Husseyin, the Court of Appeal found that a woman who was the subject of a deportation order could not be deported because she married a man who qualified under section 1(5) after the deportation order, but before deportation action could be taken. That also cannot be sensible.
Those examples illustrate the anomalies and difficulties to which section 1(5) gives rise. Accordingly, we now propose to repeal section 1(5). I stress that that does not mean that those settled here before 1973 will be unable to bring their wives and children to join them. It merely means that they will have to satisfy the same requirements in the immigration rules as those who do not benefit from section 1(5). We already apply the full range of requirements in the immigration rules to those who have come to settle here after the beginning of 1973. After 14 years, it seems right now to bring these special benefits under section 1(5) to an end, and to treat everyone on the same footing. [Interruption.] May I develop my argument before the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) intervenes?
Of course, the change will affect people regardless of origin—a point that was clearly made in this week's New Statesman. However, when Parliament considered the matter in 1971, it was concerned about the rights of adult males already settled here. From previous patterns


of immigration, it might reasonably have been assumed that, once those men had brought in their close dependants, the demand for entry of dependants would begin to fall away. So far, that has happened only to a modest degree, because those who were children in 1973 are still often seeking wives and husbands from the sub-continent. That is their right, and the Bill does not remove it. The Bill says, however, that it is not a right which should be exercised indefinitely without regard to the ability of those concerned to support themselves once they are here. It is no service to community relations for families to come here if they are then homeless or destitute. It is fair and reasonable that people should not come here without having somewhere to live and some means of support without recourse to public funds.
There are of course some applications now outstanding from the wives and children of section 1(5) men, and there will be more by the time that clause 1 comes into effect. It would be unfair to penalise those applying to come here from parts of the world where there are queues for entry clearance. I therefore propose to frame the commencement order so that applications from section 1(5) beneficiaries which are outstanding when clause 1 comes into effect are dealt with in accordance with the law as it stood at the time of application. 1 propose to adopt the same approach in dealing with applications from polygamous wives under clause 2.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Has not the Home Secretary said on a number of occasions how strongly he is against retrospective legislation? Does not this clause retrospectively deny rights to people who have held those rights for 14 years? Can the right hon. Gentleman see any moral justification for that?

Mr. Hurd: I have explained the justification, which I think is very clear. The proposal will make overwhelming sense to people as they grasp its impact. I have tried in the transitional arrangements to meet the point about retrospection, and I think that I have done so.
Clause 2 seeks to prevent the entry of more than one wife of a polygamous marriage where the second wife applies to come here in exercise of a right of abode which she has by virtue of her marriage. I do not wish to exaggerate the point. The number of polygamous wives coming here is quite small we estimate that perhaps 25 or so polygamous households are set up here every year. However, polygamy is not an acceptable social custom in this country. I have no doubt that it would cause serious damage to community relations if it became generally understood that men settled here could continue to bring in a number of wives each. I very much hope that, on reflection, the Opposition will not make an issue of the change. The numbers involved are small, but the principle is not acceptable. The sooner we make that clear in the law of the land, the less likely it will be that damage to community relations will result.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend will know that, in my constituency, there was a recent case of polygamy in which the intended wife was under the age of 15. Will not the Bill help to stop the awful abuse of children involved in such practices?

Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There is an overwhelming argument of common sense in favour of the proposal.
Clause 3 deals with a loophole that emerged about 18 months ago, when about 1,500 women and children arrived here. It was claimed that the children were British citizens by descent, but they had not first established that claim. When they were refused leave to enter, they claimed a right of appeal in this country, and the appellate authorities ruled that the existing provisions of the law meant that they had such a right. The number of arrivals in the past 12 months has been small, but, again, we need to close the loophole.
Accordingly, clause 3 extends to the groups affected a requirement that already applies to all other passengers arriving at our ports claiming British citizenship they should establish their claim by obtaining a British passport or other document establishing their citizenship. If they arrive here without the necessary documents, they will he able to be removed and will not have a right of appeal in this country. That will reassert, in this limited category, the principle that people seeking to come here for settlement should establish their claim to do so before travelling. It does not alter the existing discretion of the immigration officer to accept as a British citizen a returning holiday maker who has lost his passport but who can show that he lives here.
Clauses 4 and 5 strengthen the enforcement arrangements in the 1971 Act to enable us to take quicker and more effective action against those who flout the conditions under which they were allowed in. Clause 4 restricts the right of appeal against administrative deportation of those overstaying leave to enter this country, or failing to observe a condition of leave so that they can appeal only on the facts of the case and not on the merits of the deportation decision.
Those who are here for more than seven years will, however, still be able to appeal on the merits of the deportation decision. The order-making power in subsection (2) is to enable me to fulfil commitments given in the European Court, when we undertook that an overstayer who claims political asylum should be able, in certain circumstances, to appeal against deportation to the appellate authorities in such a way that they can consider the asylum claim as well as the question of overstaying.
Clause 5 is not new. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows, an earlier version appeared in the Criminal Justice Bill before the election. The clause seeks to return the application of the law about overstaying to what it was before the cases of Gurde v Singh and Grant v. Borg. In the former, the court found that overstaying was not a continuing offence under the terms of the 1971 Act, and in the latter the House of Lords ruled that the offence of overstaying a period of leave could be committed only on the first day following its expiry. That seemed to us to be an extremely restrictive definition of the offence of overstaying. We propose in the Bill to restore the law to what we supposed it to be before those two cases.

Mr. Peter Shore: The seven-year rule in clause 4 is extremely important. It matters enormously whether the seven-year period is to count from the last time that the person affected entered the United Kingdom or is to relate to people who have lived for more than seven years in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary will understand the difference. People who may have been living here for between 14 and 20 years


could have paid a visit abroad during the past seven years and, therefore, could be deemed to be ineligible for the benefits provided by the clause.

Mr. Hurd: It will count from the last time that they entered this country. [Interruption.] However, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to elaborate on that point.
The restriction will apply to cases where there is already a right of appeal through the appellate machinery. What is at stake at the moment is a later right of appeal against deportation. There is already a right of appeal against refusal of leave to remain. In most cases we are referring to the second stage, where there is a right of appeal against the deportation that follows from that. That right of appeal is to be restricted in the way that I have described.
Clause 6 is concerned with Europe. The 1971 Act was drawn up before we joined the European Community, and in some respects it is inconsistent with European Community law. In particular, nationals of European Community states, and their family members who come here in exercise of the right of free movement, do not require leave to enter. Clause 6 makes that point. It is our intention to make an Order in Council under the European Communities Act 1972, setting out the position of people who are claiming free movement rights.
Finally, among the main provisions of the Bill, clause 7 enables me to charge for providing special immigration services and for settlement. I have it in mind that if a commercial operator—for example, an airline—asks for the attendance of additional immigration officers at a specific time or place for special reasons, that will enable charges to be made for such services, assuming that the necessary immigration officers can be made available. On charges for settlement, we already charge for visas, entry clearance and citizenship. It is also right that we should be able to charge for the grant of settlement, on the usual basis of recovering the costs of considering the application for settlement.
I have ranged fairly widely through the Bill and a few related matters, because I thought that it would be helpful to put the proposals in context. Immigration has been, and to some extent remains, one of the most difficult, sensitive and emotive subjects in political life. It needs to be handled carefully. Responsible politicians should avoid sensationalising the issue, because of the consequences that such remarks can have.

Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: No. I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
The issue must also be approached with candour. At the general election the Conservative manifesto repeated our long-standing commitment to "firm but fair" immigration controls. We promised the legislation that is now before the House, to ensure the effectiveness of those controls. The Opposition's manifesto pledged their attachment to
firm and fair immigration control.
So far, so good. The Opposition have chosen our words. I hope that they will accept our policies.

Mr. Leighton: Six months will undoubtedly be enough for most visitors, but there will be occasions when a visitor

could make a good case for staying here for seven or eight months. Something might happen while the visitor was here. What would happen in such a case?

Mr. Hurd: Although the percentage is slightly higher for visitors from the Indian sub-continent, only 0·5 per cent. of the total number of visitors stay for more than six months. It will always be possible on compassionate grounds to allow visitors to stay for longer than six months.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, I am coming to the end of my speech. I have been quite generous in giving way. Many hon. Members will wish to take part in what is to be an abbreviated debate.
When the Opposition consider how to deal with the Bill, I hope that they will resist the temptation to say different things to different audiences in different parts of town. They have slipped into the habit of saying that they believe in firm control and then denouncing as racist all attempts to improve the effectiveness of the controls. The Opposition cannot will the end without willing the means. If they attempt to do so, people will suspect, with reason, that they are trying to send different messages about their interests to different parts of the community.
The ritual denunciation of modest Government measures—such as the denunciations that I read in the press following a very reasonable meeting that I had a few weeks ago with the right hon. Member for Gorton and several of his colleagues—spread needless distress and alarm among the ethnic minorities. I recall the hubbub about the visa discussion, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) drew attention. However, the hubbub has died down, because the new system was never as it was described and denounced by the Opposition. It has proved to be workable and sensible. Many bona fide travellers from the Indian sub-continent have found that the system provides advantages. All that I am asking for is clear thinking by the Opposition. They must stop speaking on this subject with a forked tongue.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is not a major, new piece of legislation. It makes sensible and limited changes to ensure that our immigration law is flexible, effective and strong enough to cope with the pressures of movement across international boundaries which we see as we approach the end of the 20th century. I believe that such flexibility and strength is a condition of harmony in our cities.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The best thing that can be said about the Home Secretary's performance today is that he began to introduce the Bill in an apologetic manner. Of his 37-minute speech, the first 17 minutes were wholly devoted to matters that do not concern the Bill. I do not blame him for that. If I were introducing the Bill, I would want to talk about something else as well.
Before I refer to the Bill, I want to make two points about the approach to visitors that the Home Secretary foreshadowed in his opening comments. First, I do not believe for a moment that he would have condescended to


comment today had not the letter from his under-secretary, Mr. T. C. Platt, announcing the decisions been in wide circulation at the weekend. Secondly, every time that the Home Secretary or one of his Tory predecessors has announced that there are pressures on the immigration service, the only solution that they can think of is to reduce immigrants' rights rather than to improve the service. When we come to debate the new regulations, we will make it clear that it is all very well to talk about firm and fair regulations, but it is wholly unacceptable to do that when every time the regulations are examined in practice they are found, not to be fair, but to be directly discriminatory.
The Bill is the most tawdry little measure that I have seen presented to Parliament during my 23 years as a Member of Parliament. It benefits virtually no one. It penalises a number of British families and families of Commonwealth citizens. Worst of all, it prejudices good community relations by pretending that there is an immigration problem when no such immigration problem exists. If the Home Secretary wants an example of that, he need go no further than consider his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) who rose, as such persons do, and referred to overstaying. The Home Secretary is aware that overstaying is a spectre that is raised by people such as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. However, the Home Secretary did not have the integrity to tell his hon. Friend that overstaying is a problem that has been wildly blown up out of all proportion by the populist commentators. The Bill encourages that kind of canard. It is not to the Home Secretary's credit that he did not slap his hon. Friend down when he tried to raise the issue of overstaying.

Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the one issue that was raised more than any other with me on the doorsteps during the election campaign by ordinary people was that of immigration. For that reason, the measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought to the House today will be very welcome to my constituents. I did not have to raise those matters with my constituents; they raised them with me.

Mr. Hattersley: I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Gentleman talked more about immigration than about anything else during the election campaign. That is one of my complaints about the Bill.
The deplorable thing about the Bill is that it affects so little that really concerns national life. It is less concerned with legislation than with propaganda. For example, we should consider clause 2, the so-called polygamous marriage clause. The clause has 10 subsections to deal with an average of 20 entrants a year. That is one subsection for every two entrants a year—a legislative record, even by this Government's standards, on immigration legislation.
The families that will be adversely affected by the Bill will invariably be black or of Asian origin. What is more, the families that will be adversely affected will almost invariably be poor. Indeed, the families that remain separated as a result of the new decisions implicit in clause 1 will, by definition, be the unemployed, the low-waged and the homeless. That is why I argue that the Bill is bad in content, worse in effect, but worst of all in intention. The primary purpose of the Bill, to use a phrase which the Home Secretary seems to like, but which is detested by

people who respect the family life of Sikhs and Moslems no less than that of Christians, is not legislation, but propaganda.
In The Guardian last Friday the Minister of State, Home Office wrote that the purpose of the Bill was to "repair loopholes" created by "judicial activism". The Minister of State's memory must he no better than his command of the English language. By "judicial activism" I presume that he means the several tribunal decisions t hat supported appellants against the Government. I assume that it refers to the judgment that the Government had violated the European convention on human rights, and also to the Law Lords ruling in the case of Grant v. Borg. In itself, that is a sorry record. It shows the Government's belief that they must make obeisance to the law only when the law is working to the Tory party's convenience. However, the most important aspect of "judicial activism" about which the Home Secretary complains relates to the Law Lords refusing to act as the Government's poodle in Grant v. Borg, and that happened five years ago.
Clause 1, which the Home Secretary proposed with as near conviction as he could muster, breaks a promise made in 1971 by changing a rule that has been in force since 1973. The question which the Home Secrertary must ask, but which he cannot answer without condemning himself and the Government, is, "Why are we dealing with the loopholes now after 15 years, 12 years and six years?" The answer is that the Home Secretary found it convenient to find and fill what he calls the gaps at the beginning of the general election campaign. He found it convenient to fill those gaps in the most public way in a letter that he sent to a Tory candidate in a marginal constituency. Happily, the rascist card did not take the trick, for Mr. Piers Merchant lost. However, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to continue polishing their image to show that the Conservative party is the party that is hard on immigration.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As Mr. Merchant is no longer a Member of the House, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to imply that in any sense Mr. Merchant, who was an extremely diligent and honourable Member of the House, was in any way racist.

Mr. Hattersley: My complaint is not against Mr. Merchant, wherever he may be. My complaint is against the Home Secretary, who sent that deplorable letter to Mr. Merchant and used Mr. Merchant as a vehicle for that kind of propaganda.
As a result of the Home Secretary's behaviour, the Bill will make no material change to the life of this country. However, it will damage the interests of some of our most disadvantaged citizens. The great party of Peel, Disraeli and Salisbury now seeks a pathetic political advantage by excluding 20 Bangladeshi second wives from this country each year. I hope that that makes the Home Secretary feel proud of his legislative record.
The next justification offered by the Home Secretary for the Bill is that it ends a number of anomalies. In fact, the Bill confirms and reinforces the greatest anomaly of all with regard to citizenship. Clause 1 ensures that in all circumstances EEC nationals enjoy rights of settlement that are denied to Commonwealth citizens. Clause 1 actually confirms that an EEC national enjoys rights that are denied to British citizens. It is easier for a Frenchman


living in Britain to bring his American wife into this country than it is for a British citizen to do the same. It is easier for a British citizen to arrange the entry of his wife into Germany than it is for him to bring his wife into the country of his birth and residence. Yet the Home Secretary tells us that he is trying to clear up anomalies.
If a British woman marries a foreign national, the husband will be allowed to enter this country only after the application of the primary purpose rule—a test that is intentionally weighted against applicants. However, an EEC citizen living in Britain will be able to bring a wife or a husband into this country without having to submit himself or herself or the spouse to that test.
The anomaly created by the Bill is highlighted by the changes in the procedure for registration at the end of the year. An Irishman living in Britain who may want to bring his wife to Britain will have more right to unite his family here than will a British subject. The advice that must be given, therefore, to those Irishmen who are pondering whether to apply for registration before 1 January is to remain Irish in Britain because, if they wish to bring their wives into this country, they have a better chance of doing so than if they become English by a Bill that is supposed to clear up anomalies.
The Irish will be caught in the backwash of the anti-immigration posturing, yet in defence of the Bill the Minister of State said in The Guardian that the Government have no wish to
belittle the very major contribution made to our national life by the minority communities".
Frankly, I prefer the honest racists, who at least spare us hypocrisy. If, as the Minister pretends, the Government want
a society not marred by racial discrimination",
why are he and the Secretary of State raising unnecessary fears by promoting this rotten little Bill? If racial equality is the Government's real objective, why, for eight years, have they constantly promoted legislation that has acted against the interests of the minorities, discriminated against their customs and mores and wilfully prevented the reunion of their families?
The Bill continues that squalid record, as an honest examination of its major clauses demonstrates. Let us consider them one by one. Clause 1 removes from Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 the absolute and unqualified right to bring their families into this country—the right which, as the Secretary of State said, was conferred on them by section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. In future they will have to pass whatever tests the Home Secretary stipulates, the primary purpose rule and the demonstration that they will make no call on public funds.
The Home Secretary asked today and in his handout of a fortnight ago why the same tests should not be applied to Commonwealth citizens who settled here before 1973 as to those who settled here more recently. The right hon. Gentleman should know the answer to that question, and I believe that he does. They should not have to pass that test because they were promised exemption in 1971 by the Home Secretary of that time. If the Home Secretary wants to argue with that—I see that he is doing something approaching a nod—I shall gladly quote from a speech

made in 1971 by Mr. Reginald Maudling, who was a different sort of Home Secretary in a different sort of Conservative Government. He said:
There will be no new papers to be carried, and they will be allowed to bring in dependants … the purpose of the second Amendment is to preserve the current statutory right to bring in wives and children under the age of 16."—[Official Report, 19 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 552.]
That statutory right, as enshrined in the 1971 Act, has now been removed because the Home Secretary has chosen to break his predecessor's promise. As a result, there will be men in Britain today who have worked, waited and saved for 10 years to bring their wives into this country, believing that they could trust the Government's word and who will now find that they are mistaken. If, after working for 10 years and paying tax and national insurance contributions, they become unemployed, they will not now be allowed to bring their wives into this country.
I offer a second objection to the change in the rules, which is perhaps more fundamental than the first. Men and women settled in Britain should have the automatic right to be joined here by their husbands or wives and dependent children. The primary purpose rule is wrong because it requires an applicant to prove what is logically and rationally unprovable. It is a test which confuses, and is intended to confuse, the applicant. It keeps genuinely married couples apart and, according to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the interviews on which the test is based contain intentionally misleading questions which, almost invariably, encourage genuine applicants to give the wrong answers. Entry on the basis of the primary purpose rule is being refused to applicants who, on the criteria laid down by the tribunal in the case of Arun Kumar, should be granted entry. By every application, in principle and in practice, the primary purpose rule is discriminatory and a disgrace, and it is made no better by the Home Secretary's intention to apply it to everyone rather than only to unlucky recent applications.

Ms. Short: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend about the application of the rule. Did he see the piece in The Guardian some weeks ago, in which the Minister of State, having visited the sub-continent, is reported to have stated that officers there regarded the rule as unjust, because it penalised the genuine cases and that the Government were thinking of bringing in a quota system instead? Will my right hon. Friend press the Home Secretary for an answer on that?

Mr. Hattersley: I understand that there are sources in the Government—I do not wish to condemn the Home Secretary to remaining in his present position by suggesting that he is one of them—who share my view of the primary purpose rule and would prefer to replace it with a quota. That would certainly be the right thing to do, as the primary purpose rule is intolerable in every particular. It is logically absurd and morally indefensible and we shall continue to fight against it, both during the passage of the Bill and thereafter.
The primary purpose rule is made no better by extending it to a new class of applicant. The Home Secretary says that it is subject to an appeals procedure, albeit an inadequate one, but he can no longer rely on everything being put right by appeals, because clauses 4 and 5 effectively remove the right of appeal from alleged overstayers. In Grant v. Borg the House of Lords ruled


that the offence of overstaying was committed only the day after leave expired. I understand the difficulties of that, but everyone knows that the real punishment for overstaying is not a few weeks in prison or a £500 fine, but removal from this country. In the past, most removals have been subject to appeal, allowing examination of the compassionate reasons, which ought to result in a real judgment whether the overstayer should be allowed to remain.
I should make it absolutely clear that I will have no truck with the wilful, the casual, the frivolous or the cynical overstayers. I share the Home Secretary's belief that they should be returned home. There are, however, overstayers who have spent most of their lives in this country, who have wives, families and dependent relatives. A decent system would allow their cases to be examined on appeal on compassionate grounds. If the Bill is passed, an overstayer convicted of the new or extended offence of overstaying, which can be prosecuted over an extended period, will he subject to removal from this country if the court recommends deportation, without the case being subject to the extensive and potentially compassionate appeal that is built into the present system. I repeat that I will have no truck with the frivolous, cynical, wilful or unjustifiable overstayer, but each case must be examined on its merits. That was possible under section 3(5) of the 1971 Act, which allowed a proper appeal to a tribunal, which would consider all the circumstances. If the Bill is passed, that proper appeal will no longer be available.
Clause 3 prevents British citizens from entering Great Britain unless they can present documents proving their status. Will the Minister tell us the estimated size of the problem that the clause is intended to solve? We know that the clause concerning bigamous wives, which received so much publicity when the Home Secretary announced the Bill—from the purity of his position, I am sure that that was not his intention—affects 20 or 25 people in this country. What is the Government's estimate of the number of people entering this country claiming to be British citizens but unable to prove it instantly? The claims made by the then Home Secretary during the passage of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill make it almost inconceivable that people could board planes in Delhi or Islamabad saying that they are British citizens but without any papers to prove it.
How many people do the Government expect to arrive at Heathrow on an average day claiming to be British but unable to prove it? I suspect that there will be very few indeed, but I know that, by and large, they will have one of two characteristics—either they will be children of genuine citizens but unable to prove their citizenship without being in the United Kingdom to obtain the necessary proof, or they will be people born in this country who, on their return in desperate circumstances, do not appear to those who judge them to fit the stereotype of the normal British citizen. The people excluded at Heathrow who claim British citizenship but cannot prove it will not be those with Anglo-Saxon names and complexions. They will be children of Asian immigrants—children born in the United Kingdom who returned to India or Pakistan in early childhood—or children born in the West Indies to British fathers. That is a further reason for our profound objection to the Bill. Even when it does not discriminate by intention, it will do so in effect.
Our basic objection is even more fundamental. The Bill is wholly unnecessary. Its purpose is to allow people like

the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who made his little point and scampered off, to pretend that there is a problem in the continued presence in this country of black and Asian immigrants, and of their children and grandchildren, who are not immigrants at all, but citizens of the United Kingdom, with exactly the same rights as the Home Secretary and I have. The Bill denies the natural rights of many of these people. Above all, it denies the right of family unity to men and women already living here. It panders to prejudice and will heighten rather than reduce racial tension. It is a disgrace to a democratic Parliament, and of course we shall vote against it.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: During the last Parliament, I was honoured to spend four years on the Home Affairs Committee and its Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. During those years I had the privilege of visiting many of the places from which our immigrant community originated, particularly Mirpur in Kashmir, Bombay, Delhi, Sylhet in northern Bangladesh, and Hong Kong. In all those places, I was greatly impressed by the work of Foreign Office and Home Office staff, who have a particularly difficult job to do on behalf of all our citizens, be they black or white. Anyone who has sat in on an interview is aware of the tension created by the experience. That tension is felt not just by the people being interviewed, for whom it must be extremely frightening, having to argue their case perhaps through an interpreter and knowing that a decision so important to their future may go against them, but by the people conducting the interview. They have to get it right. They must be dispassionate and accurate, and they are not above criticism.
One occasionally hears from Opposition Members that the work of the entry clearance officers, particularly on the sub-continent, is carried out brusquely and rudely. Occasionally they are accused of racism. I saw no evidence of that when I was on the sub-continent with the Home Affairs Select Committee. Instead, I saw men and women bending over backwards to be fair. During our discussions with the Foreign Office, and the Home Office, I saw such men and women being properly trained to deal with the problems that they face. I saw the dedication with which the entry clearance officers from the Foreign Office and the Home Office went about their work, trying not only to learn the languages of the people whom they interview, but to appreciate their religion and culture.
As part of the work of the Sub-Committee, we visited ports of entry in the United Kingdom and Lunar house. This is a fair occasion on which to pay tribute to the immigration officers at our various ports of entry and at Lunar house. I found them courteous and helpful. There are occasions when tensions rise, and when it seems there is too much work for too few people. I am glad that most of the staff employed by the Home Office in this country who carry out such a difficult role are properly trained in racial awareness and in ways of dealing with people who may be tired after a long flight and confused when confronted by British officials. Indeed, the training that such officials receive properly reflects the difficult task that they carry out. They were not always so aware of the problems faced by people from far away countries hut the training is now up to standard.
I also visited the Harmondsworth detention centre and the detention centre at the Queen's building at Heathrow.


Those are miserable places. They are the most depressing part of the immigration department structure. They are a scar on the reputation of this nation. Detention centres should be bigger and more comfortable. When I consider Latchmere house, which is in my constituency, I feel that they are not appropriate for people who, after all, have not been convicted of any crime.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley: I do not wish to give way to Opposition Members regularly.

Mr. Corbyn: I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that far too many people are held in detention? Should we not perhaps give priority to reducing the number of people wrongfully held in detention instead of building up a huge system of detention centres for people who, he admits, have committed no crime?

Mr. Hanley: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly. I wish that more people would arrange their affairs so that they have proper entry clearance before they come to this country and avoid being detained for any reason. It inconveniences those individuals who are detained. It is also expensive and distressing for us all. They could do more to help themselves at their port of departure and thus avoid the whole panoply of the detention process and the disgraceful circumstances in which they are held. The staff try their hardest to be polite and pleasant, but the conditions in which people are kept are less than I would expect. I hope that, when he replies, my hon. Friend the Minister will mention that.
We should consider the size of the problem that confronts the Home Office each year. The last full year for which figures are available is 1986, when more than 7 million visitors came to the United Kingdom. That is a mind-boggling statistic. Of those people, most come for short-term holidays, leave when they are due to leave and cause no trouble. They not only enrich our country financially, but they learn of the country's benefits and depart spreading the good will which I hope they enjoyed here. Many come for settlement, and during the past 10 years about 600,000 people were given permanent settlement in the United Kingdom. Therefore, in the past 10 years we have given permanent homes to far more than half a million people. Of those, the majority come from the Indian sub-continent or south-east Asia.
Opposition Members say that the Government are racist, but it is hardly the record of a racist Government to allow so many people from such wide backgrounds and origins to settle. Indeed, their accusation that our immigration law is racist is unfair, not only when one considers the numbers who have been given permanent settlement, but when one considers what the Labour Government did. The law then was much the same as under this Government. Therefore, if there are criticisms to be made, they should have been levelled as much at the Labour Government as they are at this Government.
During the past 10 years, 25,000 people have been given refugee status in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hattersley: Surely the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to concede that the primary purpose rule and all the other rules which are preventing husbands from

joining wives and wives from joining husbands, which is the major disgrace of our immigration legislation, did not apply until the Conservative party came to office?

Mr. Hanley: I entirely agree that the primary purpose rule as phrased at present did not apply under the Labour Government. However, it has always been necessary to control bogus marriages, and those who sell their nationality to somebody else must be controlled. The right hon. Gentleman may be a little surprised to hear that I do not hold much truck with the primary purpose rule as it is at present instituted.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley: No, I will not give way because I should like to develop the point that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made.

Mr. Heffer: I wish to give some practical examples.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mr. Hanley: The primary purpose rule is less than perfect and in some cases people who have genuine marriages are separated because of it. I know it is hard to say this, but it is not our immigration law which separates families; it is families which separate families. People choose to leave their family home and come here before they have clearance for their family. It is inherent in our immigration rules that people must make sure that their families are entitled to come here before they come here and separate themselved from their families. Morover, if they feel that separation is unacceptable, they can always consider returning to their families, thus rejoining the family and stopping the separation. That aspect is often ignored; and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook ignored it when he said that the primary purpose rule separated families. It is not the rule that causes separation; it is the action and wishes of individuals.
Nevertheless, I agree that the primary purpose rule needs revision and I certainly believe that it would be better if we could make the interview procedure even more acceptable than it is at present. I have sat in on primary purpose rule interviews in Bombay and Calcutta and listened to the questioning. Certainly, I did not witness any loaded questions, and when in the past examples of loaded questions have been brought to the attention of the Home Office those questions have not been asked again. Naturally, not every interviewer can get it right the first time. It is difficult to interview people on the primary purpose rule. However, I believe that the Home Office is extremely sensitive about this, and so it should be. The instructions given to ECOs are wholly fair and, where there have been abuses or errors, the procedures have been tightened up and improved.

Mr. John Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would help if we had a procedure for taping interviews under controlled conditions so that there would be a validated record of precisely what transpires? Does he share my experience that on some occasions applicants allege that unsuitable questions were asked and it is never possible to establish the truth or otherwise of such allegations because there is no independent record of precisely what happened at the interview?

Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. The Select Committee in its report in the spring of 1985 recommended that a reliable record of asylum interviews should be made. Experiments on taping interviews were carried out. Naturally, the difficulties of that are well known, but I am glad that experiments were carried out and that it may be possible to have more immigration interviews recorded. I am sure that the difficulties of tape-recording interviews, especially where two and sometimes three languages are used, are clear to all hon. Members. There is the further difficulty of storing the cassettes. It is difficult enough to store the paper that flows from immigration interviews, let alone cassettes for each interview. However, we should have more taping of interviews and I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the Select Committee on that.
On illegal entrants, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wanted to know how many people arrived in the United Kingdom without having cleared their documents first.

Mr. Hattersley: It is a question of people claiming British citizenship. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he thinks that tape recording their interviews would help?

Mr. Hanley: I am sorry, but I could not hear that.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a figure—his estimate or that of somebody else—of the number of people who might arrive at Heathrow claiming British citizenship without papers? Does he think that tape recording their interviews would help?

Mr. Hanley: Tape recording of interviews would help at every level.

Mr. Hattersley: What is the point of tape recording those interviews if there is to be no appeal system afterwards, which is what the Bill seeks?

Mr. Hanley: As I have said, I believe it is right that interviews should be taped. I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's point constructive. In direct answer to his question, I believe that over a relatively short period in 1986 some 1,500 wives and children arrived at ports of entry in the United Kingdom claiming to be British citizens, hut with no evidence to support that contention.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. How many people have arrived under those conditions since the passage of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which seeks to prevent people from getting on aircraft without documents?

Mr. Hanley: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports that Act.
We were considering the number of illegal entrants. In 1986, some 1,582 illegal entrants were traced and about 10,000 have been traced over the past 10 years. It is wholly wrong for the Labour party not to condemn those who abuse our immigration laws because they do harm to our community, to race relations within the community and to those who are waiting to come here legally.

Mr. Corbyn: What about Zola Budd?

Mr. Hanley: What about Precious McKenzie?

Mr. Corbyn: Who is he?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is obviously ignorant. If he would care to stop shouting and leave the Chamber and look in the Library he will find the answer to that question.

Mr. Corbyn: I was trying to suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consider the unwholesome, not to say grossly unfair, way in which Zola Budd was rushed into this country because she is white, from South. Africa and can run, whereas 12,000 families are forced to remain in Bangladesh because of a deliberate bureaucratic decision taken by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hanley: Zola Budd was allowed in because of rights that have been debated in the House for hour after hour. I happened to mention Mr. Precious McKenzie who was also allowed into this country, and one should balance his case against that of Miss Budd.
The Bill is merely a technical measure. Certainly, any Immigration Bill raises passions, and it is not surprising that the House has already experienced some shouting from one side to the other. It is always regrettable that this issue raises passions. However, it raises passions outside the House, too.
It is vital that we should have immigration laws that are practical, that work and are not racial or discriminatory. It is difficult to have any immigration law enforced in a country without there being tension. I pay tribute to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service for the work that it does. The dispassionate way in which it carries out its work helps to reduce the tensions and clamour so often associated with this issue. We should see whether the Bill answers the tensions and clamour. I believe that it does. Under clause 4 I am certain that cases will be decided in a dispassionate way and that the distress that is so often caused by campaigns claiming that the Government have acted wrongly will be reduced.

Mr. Boateng: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should reduce the clamour that he describes as surrounding these cases by reducing the right of appeal? If he is, that is truly a horrific concept and one that does not do him or his party any credit.

Mr. Hanley: To reduce the length of time for which an appeal can continue when there are no real grounds for that appeal is a service to the person who has no right to be here and to the host community. In other words, I do not agree that clause 4 is the ogre that the Immigration Law Practitioners Association claims. One can understand why it wants litigation to go on and on, and one can therefore see why it opposes clause 4. However, I cannot believe that clause 4 will do other than bring about the determination of a case much more quickly and fairly than at present. We should remember that nothing in the Bill removes the discretion of the Home Secretary. He can still decide cases based on his discretion. The Bill simply means that an appeal on the grounds of that discretion cannot be brought.
I should like to clear up a point that I heard on the radio this morning. Clause 1 will not prevent the entry of wives and children of Commonwealth citizens who settled here on 1 January 1973. It is remarkable that people should say that it will. All it does—we have heard this from the Home Secretary—is to require those people to satisfy the same tests as others. Therefore, it is vital for fairness that there should not be two, three or four different classes


of individuals living beside each other who, because of the accident of a particular date, happen to find themselves with or without certain special privileges. The Conservative party agrees with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook who pointed to some of the illogicalities that will exist even after the Bill becomes part of immigration law. I am sure that many of us would like some of the old privileges to be removed so that all people are treated in the same way. I believe that the Bill is one step on that road. I certainly expect there to be other Immigration Bills to come.
It is wholly fair that anybody who comes to this country, even if they have been here before 1973, should have to face the same tests as others as to the genuineness of their marriage and the ability to keep their family in this country without being a burden on the state. Too many of us believe that the rights — rights they were — enshrined in 1971 and in operation from 1 January 1973 are inviolable. Those rights were provided in order to serve a need at a certain time, but now, 17 years later, it is fairer that we should have rights that are common to all people of the same circumstances. I believe that to hark back to the rights of the Immigration Act 1971 and to treat the removal of those rights as damaging, racist and discriminatory is wrong. It removes elements of discrimination and makes people more equal. In future we will look back and ask why we did not do it earlier.
The Select Committee found that the number of cases involving polygamy is extremely small but the subject did raise amazing passions among the people who brought the subject to us, particularly the Bangladeshi community. There were many people within the Bangladeshi community in the United Kingdom—the evidence is in the report of the Select Committee—who felt that it was unfair that certain people should enjoy what was effectively a privilege because of the choice of religion. We recommended in one of our reports that action should be taken to stop immigration abuse caused by polygamous marriages. We are glad that it will be brought into law by the Bill. The numbers are small but we should adhere to the principle.
Unlike some Labour Members, I do not believe that nuclear warfare is imminent. I believe that because of our defence stance nuclear warfare is well away. But I believe that bad race relations are more likely to cause blood on our streets than nuclear warfare any day. It is vital that we have a harmonious community and that passions are not whipped up for politial causes when Bills of this sort—technical measures—are introduced. I feel that the Bill should be not so much welcomed as accepted. It is not the sort of Bill to make one raise flags and say that it will make a vast difference to the nation. It will remove certain discriminatory elements and make immigration law simpler and easier. I hope that our record for accepting people for settlement will be seen in its proper context. We are an open and welcoming community. Some Labour Members are utterly wrong and crass in the open-door immigration policy that has been voiced by some of them.—[Interruption.] Our immigration law is necessary for good race relations. The Bill will do nothing to harm them.

Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there not a rule about

an hon. Member making an unsupported, totally bogus, totally incorrect and totally wicked allegation without giving way and then finishing his speech?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished his speech. I understand that that is the case.

Mr. Peter Shore: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) commented correctly and sufficiently on the speech of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's declaration that he had been a member of the Select Committee that studied the problems of the Bangladeshi and other immigrant communities. The views that he has formed and the opinions that he has expressed to the House bear no relation to my understanding, or that of my hon. Friends—who are in more direct contact with the Bangladeshi community—of their problems.

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Mr. Shore: I am not giving way. I have been generous in mentioning the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Madame Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not giving way. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) had the Floor for a long time.

Mr. Hanley: On a point of order, Madame Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just attacked me in his speech, and I wish to refute what he said. Is it not in order for me to intervene? Is that not a custom of the House?

Madame Deputy Speaker: It is a custom of the House for an hon. Member who has been named in that way to have an opportunity to reply. However, the hon. Gentleman had the Floor for about 28 minutes. Does the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) want to give way?

Mr. Shore: Only if the hon. Gentleman promises to be brief.

Mr. Hanley: What I said is wholly consistent with the reports of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. The right hon. Gentleman will notice that the report on the Bangladeshi community was unanimous, comprising the votes of three Conservative Members and two Labour Members.

Mr. Shore: The report drew attention to the problems of housing, homelessness and separated families in the Bangladeshi community. I wish that some of those problems had been reflected in the speeches of Conservative Members.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's speech. I particularly wanted to learn why he considered it necessary to introduce this technical measure. Unfortunately, I did not receive a proper answer. The Home Secretary rightly said that the problem of mass primary immigration had passed and that it had been dealt with by the Immigration Act 1971. He gave figures to demonstrate that the number of people who have been coming to Britain in the past 10 years has fallen steeply. It is now down to about two-thirds of the level of about 10 years ago.
With regard to the control of immigration, why is the Bill necessary? The right hon. Gentleman said that amendments needed to be made to keep the control firm and fair. He did not specify why we need these further controls to keep it firm and fair. He mentioned the overload or strain and stress on the officials who administer the entry clearance system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) rightly said, that excuse is not acceptable. The alternative way of dealing with that problem is to increase the resources of manpower at Heathrow, at other places of entry and in our missions abroad so that we can deal with the problem more expeditiously without overloading officials in the way that they have been overloaded from time to time in recent years.
We were told that this legislation was necessary to enable the Home Office to react to new developments. I hardly consider the main provisions of the Bill to be new developments. They seem to be the old problems that have been with us from the beginning. As I said, my basic question about why this measure is being introduced was unanswered.
The two central features of the Bill are deeply objectionable. The first concerns the powers that will make it even more difficult for men who have been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for at least the past 15 years—many of whom are now British citizens—to be joined by their families. The second feature concerns the provisions that severely limit the right of appeal for those who are already in Britain and who have, in the words of the Bill, failed to observe the conditions or limitations on their leave to enter.
In theory, some provisions of the Bill will affect all immigrants, but in practice—little has been said about the practical effects of this proposed legislation — as clause 1 makes plain, the main weight of the Bill will fall on Commonwealth citizens, particularly the Bangladeshi community—the most recent of the communities that have arrived in large numbers in Britain—where the problem of divided families is most serious and acute.
The right to family reunion is enshrined in section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. It promised that nothing done under the Act would make the wives or families of Commonwealth citizens who were settled in Britain before 1973 less free to come to and stay in Britain than they were when the Act was passed. Those promises, which were made by a previous Conservative Government, will now be withdrawn by clause 1 without serious or proper explanation or consideration of the effect that that will have.
Commonwealth citizens who have been in Britain for at least 15 years, including those who came in the 1950s and 1960s, and who have often had to endure long and cruel separations from their families, will now be required to show that they are able to support their families without resort to public funds and that they possess accommodation sufficient to house them before entry certificates are granted. It may be said that after 15 years the great majority should be able to support themselves and their families and that they should have been able to find a home, but when we consider the conditions of housing and unemployment as they affect the areas of immigrant settlement in the United Kingdom, the formidable obstacles that these requirements will present become obvious.
This is not the Britain of full employment as it was when the last Immigration Act was passed. Even according to Government figures, unemployment is over 2·8 million. It is in the inner-city areas, where the immigrant communities have most heavily settled, that unemployment rates are at their highest. The Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere is notoriously industrious and hard working. The scourge of unemployment has visited them in the past eight years with exceptional severity. Many, through no fault of their own, are now dependent on unemployment pay and supplementary benefit. Many more have not been able to acquire housing for themselves or their families.
In Tower Hamlets, where the largest number of Bangladeshis are concentrated in Britain, no fewer than 1,200 families are homeless and living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Many thousands more live in grossly overcrowded conditions. In a borough where 84 per cent. of housing is controlled by the council, homes can be found only if the council makes sufficient housing provision.
Before this Government came to power, in the 1974–79 period, about 900 new homes a year were provided, either by the Tower Hamlets council or the GLC. Two years ago the GLC was abolished and, to my certain knowledge, for the past three years not one new council home has been built in Tower Hamlets. There has been a massive reduction in the provision of rented housing, accompanied by a growing number of families from Bangladesh joining their husbands and fathers, who are already settled in Tower Hamlets. The result is a housing crisis more serious than any to be found elsewhere in England and in any period since the 1940s. The local council sought to diminish the problem by the wretched expedient of declaring Bangladeshi families to be intentionally homeless. They are accused of being intentionally homeless because, by definition, they left homes in Bangladesh to join their husbands and fathers here.

Mr. Tim Janman: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's observations about homelessness as it affects the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent initiative by the London borough of Camden in offering cash incentives to homeless Irish families so that they can return to Ireland should be extended to others of different races, not only in that borough, but in Tower Hamlets?

Mr. Shore: That would be absurd. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot believe that after all these years of waiting and coming at last to the United Kingdom to join their husbands or fathers those families would willingly accept a payment for their return fare to Bangladesh. That would be totally unreasonable and wrong.
To subject pre-1973 Commonwealth immigrants to the requirement that they must provide suitable accommodation for their families as a condition of entry is to erect the most formidable obstacle yet against family reunion. If the Government really want to solve the problem and to ease the great strain of family separation, they should drop the clause and radically increase housing investment programmes in Tower Hamlets and similar boroughs.
One of the extraordinary things about the Select Committee was that, with its majority of Conservative Members, it recommended that something had to be done to improve the housing programme in Tower Hamlets. It


is no good the Home Secretary claiming, as I think he did in justification, that section 1(5) of the 1971 Act is contrary to the European convention on human rights in the sense that it discriminates sexually. If that alleged sexual discrimination is to be put right, the answer, as the Home Secretary well knows, is to extend to women the rights now enjoyed by men, not to remove them.
In principle, clause 3, which also limits rights of access and denies the children of British citizens resident in the United Kingdom right of entry and to have their appeals heard in the United Kingdom, is equally objectionable. One of the first cases arose in my area and it opened up what had not previously been thought to be a right attaching to the children of citizens resident in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary has been misinformed by his officials if he thinks that the proposed power is necessary. With the introduction of visas for Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis coming to Britain, when fines were imposed upon airlines for bringing them to Britain without a passport or proof of citizenship, those rights were taken away. I have not heard of such a case in the last nine or 12 months.
We need clear answers on several questions relating to clause 1. If a British citizen's child living overseas obtains a United Kingdom passport or certificate of entry, does the parent in Britain still have to satisfy the authorities that the child can be maintained without recourse to public funds and that adequate accommodation is available?
I think that the Home Secretary answered my next question about clause 1. I hope that the small print will be satisfactory. My query concerns people in the pipeline—those who are applying for entry certificates — and whether they will be affected by the new provisions.
The Home Secretary already has the power to deport overstayers. He has administrative powers and powers of criminal prosecution under the Immigration Act 1971. The exercise of both powers is subject to appeal. The appellate authorities have rights to decide and hear appeals on the ground that compassionate circumstances might outweigh the public interest in deporting an overstayer. Further, a prosecution against an overstayer must be brought within three years of the date when overstaying began. Clauses 4 and 5 radically reduce the safeguards. Clause 5 makes overstaying a continuing offence and those affected will, therefore, be liable to criminal prosecution however long they have been here. On appeal, there will be no obligation on the court to consider compassionate circumstances.
Clause 4 is exceptionally severe. Once again, on appeal there will be no requirement that decision-makers take into account circumstances which might be compellingly compassionate. In addition, the clause embraces all those who have been in the United Kingdom for less than seven years. That is an exceptionally long time. In those seven years a person might have married and founded a family. The interests of the wife and children will not now have to be considered on appeal. That is a major loss and change.
Some people overstay because of the fear of persecution for reasons of politics, religion or race. Clause 4(2) enables the Secretary of State to exempt a class of person from the operation of the clause. Are the Government prepared to undertake that people who have applied for asylum as overstayers, or who raise asylum as an issue, will be exempt under clause 4(2) so that on appeal all their

circumstances will be judicially considered? I think that the Home Secretary went a long way to meet that point, but I should like to be clear.
Clause 4(2) states that the seven-year rule
applies to any person who was last given leave to enter the United Kingdom less than seven years before the date of the decision in question".
As I read it, and as I believe the Home Secretary confirmed, that would mean that someone who had been in the United Kingdom for 10, 15 or even more years could still be caught if he had gone abroad for any period during the past seven years and was given leave to enter the United Kingdom on his return. That would be appallingly restrictive.
Even now, unless there are adverse reports on an individual's character and behaviour in the United Kingdom, the Home Office accepts that anyone who has been in the United Kingdom for 10 years and has not spent long periods abroad should be allowed to remain here. We seem to be moving far more restrictively against people who, under the terms of the Bill, have already established a long period of residence in the United Kingdom.
The Bill will have no noticeable numerical effect on the number of people allowed into the United Kingdom. Its effects will be concentrated upon certain communities, especially the Bangladeshi community. It will cause great distress, by prolonging the period for which families are divided and by removing the rights of appeal against bureaucratic decisions on deportation. Far from promoting racial harmony, it will increase the sense of distrust and alienation among the immigrant communities.
If the Home Secretary cannot give assurances on the questions that I have asked, the Bill will be judged as an intolerably illiberal, discriminatory and racist measure. If the Home Secretary accepts the points that have been made and limits some of the worst effects of the Bill, it will still richly deserve to be rejected by the House.

6 pm

Mr. John Watts: More than a quarter of my constituents are of Commonwealth and Pakistani origin, so they and I have a keen interest in any measure on immigration or nationality. They have a special interest to ensure that such matters are considered dispassionately and sensitively.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) criticised the Bill for causing unnecessary fear. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his Labour party colleagues have made exaggerated and inaccurate descriptions of the effects of the Bill, such as suggesting that it removes the right of those settled here before 1973 to bring in their wives and children. During the recent election campaign, in my constituency and in other areas, they went round in an evil and disgraceful way stirring up unnecessary fear about the requirement to register by the end of this year under the British Nationality Act 1981. They told the people in my constituency that if they did not register they would be deported next year. It was done purely for party political purposes, but their stratagem turned round and hit them in the face. Despite the fact that they transmitted this lying and evil message over public address systems and loudspeakers in my constituency, it did not secure the election of the Labour candidate for Slough. It never will.
My constituents are interested in ensuring the firm and fair control of immigration. There is no difference of


interest or view among my constituents, whether they come from the Asian, Welsh, Irish, Polish or English communities. Indeed, I have received more representations from Asian constituents that our control over visitors and the admission of dependants and our action in dealing with overstayers is too lax than I have had from any other section of the community. It is not difficult to understand that. Someone who has been settled in Slough for 20 years, having come originally from India, Pakistan or east Africa, who has established himself and his family in a business and who is a full and responsible member of the local community does not wish his position to be undermined by those who try to find loopholes in our immigration control or try to exploit the system.
The Bill, which has been so roundly denounced by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, is fairly modest, but it is necessary and important. It requires that a dependant who will be admitted to Britain should be accommodated and supported by the sponsor—the father, husband or mother — without recourse to public funds. That elementary provision is sensible. I recall my local government experience as leader of Hillingdon council, which had to deal with a flood of people arriving at Heathrow who had made no arrangements for accommodation and who tried to use the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to obtain accommodation ahead of local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who was chairman of the housing committee in Hillingdon, and I had to deal with a constant stream of such applications. To protect the interests and defend the rights of Hillingdon's ratepayers and residents who were waiting for housing, we often had to have recourse to the Court of Appeal and even to the House of Lords.
In the light of my experience in Hillingdon when I stood for Slough in 1983, I suggested in my election address that we should make further modifications to the immigration rules to require sponsors to show that they could accommodate and support dependants without recourse to public funds. I was pleased when, in the previous Parliament, the Government changed the rules applying to the dependants of those who had settled in Britain after 1973. I am also pleased that the Bill extends those rules to the dependants of all people settled here.
Labour Members made great play of the right that was available to those settled here before 1971 to bring in children under the age of 16 and wives without let or hindrance. I remind them that those dependent children would now be 16 years old. We should question why that right has not been exercised during those 16 years. Perhaps the sponsors — the husbands and fathers — are more responsible than Labour Members: they would not wish to bring a wife or children to Britain unless they could support and provide them with proper accommodation. Husbands and fathers from Asian backgrounds do not have a different attitude from the rest of us about their responsibility to support their families. Indeed, they are much more responsible towards their families.

Mr. Boateng: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that to be in receipt of housing benefit is to be disqualified from the privilege of family unity?

Mr. Watts: I am suggesting that those who have had the right to bring in wives and children for the past 16 years and have not exercised that right may have a better sense of responsibility than Labour Members.
If a wife or a child is admitted as a dependant, it should be as a dependant of the head of the household, not of the British taxpayer or ratepayer. I find that those of my constituents who come to me for assistance with processing applications on behalf of dependants are willing to accept these sensible requirements. They see nothing amiss in being expected to accommodate and support their relatives without recourse to public funds. They assume that that should be the case. That is all the Bill does. It puts into law what most people of all communities would accept as a sensible provision.
It is right to apply the principle that only one wife of a polygamous marriage should be allowed to settle here, for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Boateng: Is that a problem in Slough?

Mr. Watts: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come to a problem relating to polygamous marriages that has arisen in my constituency, and concerning which I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider an amendment to the Bill.
There is a problem when a second wife has married her husband after he has acquired a residence of choice in this country. In such a case, it is the first wife who is eligible to seek entry for settlement. The second wife cannot claim that right, even in circumstances in which it is established that the first wife has no wish ever to exercise her right to come to the United Kingdom. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should consider allowing either one of a husband's two wives to exercise the right to apply for entry for settlement, if there is an undertaking from the other wife that she would not wish at any subsequent time also to exercise that right. I have two constituency cases in mind, about which I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister, so he will recognise them.
Consideration should also be given to making sufficient provision for another category of visitor that is not covered specifically by our present immigration rules. I refer to mothers who come here as visitors to look after their children during term time when they are in fee-paying education in this country. I have had two or three such cases in Slough in the past year or so. In one, there was a satisfactory arrangement under which a multiple-entry visa was issued, allowing the mother to come and go within a period of 12 months to look after her children while they were at school. I have a current case, as yet unresolved, about which I have made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and about which I do not want to go into details on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend will know the case that I have in mind. We need some specific provision in the immigration rules to cover such cases. When a mother can show that she has the means to support herself and her children and to pay school fees, it is wholly reasonable that she should be allowed entry for short but regular visits during term time to look after her children.
A major problem relating to the admission of dependants is often the difficulty of establishing that a relationship is what it is claimed to be—that a child is the son or daughter of the claimed father. That is a problem especially for children from some parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Mr. Boateng: Why?

Mr. Watts: Because there is inadequate documentary evidence—registration of births—it is not easy for such


people to establish conclusively that a relationship is as claimed. I note that there have been some experiments recently with DNA fingerprinting to help establish relationships in such cases. I ask my hon. Friend to consider making such testing much more widely available—on a voluntary basis—so that whenever there is uncertainty in the mind of an entry clearance officer about the paternity of a child whose father wishes him to come here as a dependant the test can be made available to provide conclusive proof one way or the other. It is most unsatisfactory when a constituent finds that he cannot establish that his child is his through documentary evidence that will satisfy the immigration authorities. Yet this new scientific method, which I understand can give conclusive proof, is not widely available. While it is right to take every necessary step to ensure that the claimed children of men and women who are settled here are indeed their children, we should also be prepared to make available the facilities for establishing such relationships scientifically, now that we have the method.

Mr. Madden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties standing in the way of applicants obtaining a DNA test is that many of them cannot afford the £400 to £500 that is charged for such tests? Would he support such charges being covered by the legal aid system?

Mr. Watts: If such tests were more widely available, the costs would probably come down. They are a facility that should be made available on a voluntary basis, as I said earlier. I do not believe that anyone should be forced to take the blood test, but it is reasonable that people should incur some expense to establish the facts that support their cases.

Mr. Hanley: It might assist my hon. Friend to know that a pilot scheme is under way at the Foreign Office, in which 40 tests have been done. The scheme concluded at the end of September. This might be an appropriate moment for our hon. Friend to state whether he has heard of any preliminary reports about that test. My hon. Friend may also have seen in yesterday's newspapers a report that the DNA test is now commercially available for £120.

Mr. Watts: I am sure that bit of information will be welcome to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for amplifying those points.
We heard earlier one of the ritual denunciations of the primary purpose rule by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), I do not pretend that the primary purpose rule works perfectly in every case. There have been cases in which I have been satisfied that the rule has worked unfairly against the interests of constituents, and I have made representations to my hon. Friend about them.
However, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook completely ignored the valuable protection that the primary purpose rule gives young women — and sometimes young men — from exploitation by being forced into marriages solely for the purpose of evading immigration control. If Opposition Members are honest with themselves, even if they do not wish to acknowledge

these facts publicly, they will know that cases have been brought to their attention by the victims of such exploitation.

Mr. Boateng: Not one.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Not one.

Mr. Watts: Perhaps when certain hon. Members have been in the House for a little longer, their experience will be the same as mine. I could cite up to 10 cases that have been brought to my attention in the past four years in which people have been inveigled into marriages that they subsequently found had been entered upon solely for the purpose of allowing the spouse to evade immigration control. They then found themselves stuck in a marriage that was not working, with a spouse to whom they did not want to be married any more, and they wrote asking me to ask my hon. Friend to get rid of the offending spouse.

Mr. John Carlisle: Perhaps I have a little more experience of these matters than my hon. Friend, and certainly more than the majority of Opposition Members. My hon. Friend will know that this problem causes the greatest distress, particularly to the young women concerned. He is therefore right to bring the matter to the attention of the House. Since the Government changed the rules, such instances are becoming fewer, and so they should. However, those involved in them certainly suffer a great deal of distress. Many of my hon. Friends have encountered similar experiences of suffering to those that my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Watts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for substantiating my point.
The other requirements of the Bill — to establish claims of citizenship before departure, tightening the grounds for appeal by overstayers and making overstaying a continuing offence — are minor but important improvements in our system of immigration control.
Firm and fair immigration control has the overwhelming support of my constituents, regardless of their racial origin, because they recognise that such control is a precondition for harmonious community relations. That is something for which we all strive.

Mr. John Cartwright: The kindest thing that I can say for some of the speeches by Conservative Members is that they demonstrate how difficult it is to defend the indefensible. I regard the Bill as pretty indefensible.
Like others who have spoken in the debate, I regard clause 1 as the most objectionable part of the Bill, because it repeals the guarantees for Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973 and, more important, the guarantees given to their wives and families. One can raise several serious objections to that repeal. The first has already been mentioned by the Opposition. It is the fact that the Government are going back on clear undertakings given to the people concerned. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) reminded us of what Mr. Reginald Maudling said during the passage of the Act. I should like to quote something else that he said on Second Reading on 8 March 1971:
I do not intend that the position of those already in this country, the rights of those already in this country to bring


in their dependants, shall be changed. That is what we promised in the election. If the Rules as drafted do not make this clear, they will certainly be amended." — [Official Report 8 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 47.]
When the Bill came back to the House from the other place on 19 October 1971, Mr. Maudling said:
By these Amendments we are giving statutory form to the undertaking I gave on Second Reading that people already accepted for settlement in this country would not be prejudiced by the Bill."—[Official Report, 19 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 552.]
Those undertakings have been repeated over the years since then.
I noticed as recently as 5 November in The Independent a comment by Mr. Abu Sayeed on behalf of the Commission for Racial Equality in Tower Hamlets. He was commenting, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has done, on the implications of the proposal for the Bangladeshi community. He said that many Bangladeshi men in that area had been waiting for up to 10 years to be joined by their wives and children. He was quoted as saying:
The Home Secretary came to visit us a few months ago and said we had nothing to fear. It seems that was wrong.
It is hard not to understand the sense among that community of being let down as a direct result of this legislation.
I say with all respect to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that if he were having his rights removed in the same way, I doubt whether he would view it in the calm and dispassionate sense that he did earlier.
The Bangladeshi community is very much at the forefront of our thoughts when we examine the legislation, because Bangladeshi men have tended to be resident in this country as heads of households without being joined by their families. That was underlined by the first report from the Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, published on 10 December 1986. Paragraph 6 states:
Although family reunion has often been delayed by immigration control procedures, many Bangladeshi men have themselves delayed sending for their families and are now doing so long after their original migration to Britain. The Bangladeshis are the last of Britain's main ethnic minorities to reunite their families here.
Surely the fact that these people are the last of those communities does not justify us putting obstacles in the way of that reunion.
Conservative Members have put forward the argument that the tests that are being laid down are not in any sense onerous. I accept that one can make a good superficial argument that those who wish to be reunited with their wives and families should be able to prove that they can house and support them without recourse to public funds. However, some Conservative Members did not seem to have any sense of compassion. The story of the Good Samaritan appears to have fallen on somewhat stony ground among some Conservative Members.
In any case, the operative point is that made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. In real life, it is almost impossible for some of those people to meet those conditions. We are talking about people who, by and large, are resident in our inner-city, deprived areas. If they are looking for housing, it has to be local authority housing, because nothing else is available at a price that anyone with below an astronomical income can afford.
There is an awful catch-22 situation. No local authority will provide housing for a family until the family is here. The applicant cannot get housing until his family is with

him, and he cannot get his family to join him until he has housing. I do not know how one could regard that as a fair and reasonable test to be met.
We are talking about the families of men who have lived in the United Kingdom for at least 14 years, who, in many cases, have paid their taxes and have not been eligible for child benefit. Their children have not benefited from the education services, and their families have not benefited from the National Health Service. Now we are penalising them. That is an unacceptable approach to ask us to support.
I was also taken by the point made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook about the implications of the legislation for all United Kingdom citizens. It is one of the most significant and long-term effects of the legislation. It will affect all British men who marry foreign spouses. They will be covered by the legislation and could be subject to the same tests and the other restrictions that any Government seek to apply at any given time. Alongside that we have clause 6, which enshrines the freedom of movement for EEC nationals and their families. They do not need permission; they do not have to pass any tests. Under EEC law, an EEC national has the right to bring in not just his spouse and children under 21, but his parents and even his grandparents. Thus, there is a crazy Alice in Wonderland situation where EEC nationals living in Britain have stronger, better rights than British citizens. As someone who supports British membership of the Community, I find that hard to accept.
As has been said, the other objectionable part of the legislation is clause 4, which restricts the right of appeal against deportation of anyone who is accused of overstaying, and has been resident in the United Kingdom for fewer than seven years. The present arrangements are that the appellate authority has the right to decide whether compassionate circumstances outweigh the public interest in a deportation case. That right disappears under clause 4. The appeal authorities will be limited simply to examining the strict point of fact whether the person has or has not overstayed. No opportunity will be given to the person to explain the circumstances. That renders the business of appeal absolutely meaningless. Deportation has a major impact on any individual. It has a massive impact on the family, which could be entirely innocent.
As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney sensibly reminded us, seven years is a long time. It is a period in which someone can put down firm roots in this country. He can establish a business or a family, marry a British citizen or have British-born children, yet we are saying that the appeal body will not be allowed to take any of that into consideration when it examines the case. That gives the authorities virtually an arbitrary power to deport in such cases without their decisions being subject to proper independent review of all the circumstances. At the very least, I should have thought that if the Government have to go down that road, why on earth must they have a period such as seven years? Why can it not be limited to one or, at the most, two years within which that draconian power is to be exercised?
Like the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, I am concerned about the impact of the change on refugees. Clause 4 as drafted would prevent overstayers who have sought asylum in this country and face deportation from explaining why they genuinely fear going back to their native land. That must be the whole nub of their case against deportation, that they genuinely fear


that their lives are at risk if they are returned to their native country. Any appeal is rendered pointless if that argument cannot be placed before the appellate authority. Like the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, I hope that the powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 4(2) will be used in such a way that these people will be excluded from the implications of the clause.
There has been much agreement in the House that immigration control is a regrettable necessity. However, it must be even-handed and fair. Much more important, it must be seen to be even-handed and fair, and I am afraid that on that test the Bill fails. It is the first immigration legislation that we have seen since 1971, and it is a matter of regret that all it seems to be doing is trying to plug so-called gaps in a system of control. Some of those alleged gaps are important rights that are enshrined in past practice or legislation. Others result from decisions of the courts that the Government now seek to reverse. No one disputes that the impact in terms of numbers will not be dramatic. The legislation establishes dangerous precedents and will create new problems and anomalies. The best epitaph on the Bill was a comment in the editorial in The Independent on 5 November, which said that the Bill was "petty and unnecessary". That is a good description, and that is why I and my hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Tim Janman: Much of the detail of what I wanted to say about the Bill has already been said by some of my hon. Friends. I should like to add one or two comments and, perhaps, broaden the discussion on immigration to bring in the possibility of some form of voluntary resettlement.
I welcome the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State visited my constituency during the election campaign and witnessed an extremely successful result. He will welcome the news that my constituents welcome the Bill, which effectively implements our manifesto commitment to ensure that controls over settlement become even more effective.
I and my constituents especially welcome clause 1. As we have heard at some length, it will extend existing criteria to pre-1973 immigrants. I endorse the statistical point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). Since the Government were elected in 1979, the number of Commonwealth immigrants has fallen to approximately 44,000 per year and immigration from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan has fallen to its lowest level since 1962. It went down to approximately 22,500 in 1986 from a peak of 68,519 in 1972.
I shall certainly vote for the Bill, but I remind the Minister that there are many aspects of immigration policy that the Conservative Governments from 1970–74 and since 1979 have not implemented, even though we have made several manifesto commitments to some form of voluntary resettlement. In our 1970 manifesto we said:
There will be no further large-scale permanent immigration".
Since then we have received more than 600,000 into the United Kingdom. They are now permanent residents and that is against the wishes of the British people. According to figures that I have seen, from the early 1960s there was no discernible reduction in the numbers of immigrants

until about 1980. The reduction started in 1980 and that is a great credit to successive Conservative Home Secretaries and the Prime Minister. Even since 1980, the number of immigrants who have come to Britain and taken up permanent residence is nearly 250,000. I hope that the Bill will lead to further reductions in the number of people coming in. More important, perhaps it will start to deal with the excessive numbers of immigrants who are already here.
There has been some talk about illegal immigration and about people coming Britain and overstaying. Many people in the United Kingdom are incensed about illegal immigration. A letter to The Daily Telegraph from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) in 1975 said:
On the wider question of immigration I find there is much distress in middle-class circles on the question of illegal immigration.
I can assure the House that there is much distress in working-class circles as well.
It is felt that the statistics are totally wrong and that the Government is doing nothing to combat the problem. As it is the number of immigrants that worries people, the authorities would be well advised to tackle this if they are to be able to sell further race relations law to the population.
That letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar was true in 1975 and remains true.
In our 1970 manifesto, from which I have already quoted, we pledged to bring in a scheme of voluntary resettlement. Since the 1970 election, all that we have had—although of course there were two different schemes running concurrently before — is the pathetic International Social Service of Great Britain. That Government body reduces the number of people who apply to return to their country of origin under the 1971 Act and in the financial year 1983–84 it spent the mean and measly sum of £1,175 per head on resettlement. That beats even the London borough of Camden in meanness in helping people to return to their country of origin.
The Bill applies tighter controls about fitness to stay to people who came here before 1973. This coupled with a generously funded, voluntary resettlement programme that was well publicised and available to all would achieve a net outflow to reduce the degree of swamping that the Prime Minister rightly spoke about in her famous speech in 1979. Our 1979 manifesto spoke about assisting people to return to their country of origin.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Janman: I shall not give way because I wish to continue with my speech. Our 1979 manifesto said that we would
help those immigrants who genuinely wish to leave this country but there can be no question of compulsory repatriation".
I endorse in its entirety that statement of intent.[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be giving way.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be doing anything.

Mr. Janman: As I say, I endorse in its entirety that statement of intent which we have not yet implemented.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Janman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boateng: Now we see.

Mr. Carlisle: I can understand the sense of hearing a reasoned voice on the argument rather than the unsound voices of Opposition Members. Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the system of voluntary repatriation has been in existence for some time and was in existence during the early 1970s when the Labour Government were in power and could have repealed the system? The Labour Government had the opportunity to withdraw that system, but did not do so. One of the reasons why the system is not taken up is that it is not publicised enough. In many cases, the information is suppressed by Labour councils which discourage people who ask about the system. Those people are told either that it does not exist or that the amount of money available is not as much as it could be.

Mr. Janman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton. North (Mr. Carlisle) for amplifying that point which I had perhaps missed. On the wider topic I shall quote from The Daily Telegraph of 1975 some comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who, when referring to those well meaning calls of racial tolerance that were made by people—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read at great length newspaper cuttings of more than 10 years ago simply because the Government Benches are so short of speakers that they wish to fill up the debate with the abuse of history as reported by The Daily Telegraph?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not out of order to read from newspapers, but I hope that the hon. Member will not be tedious or go on at great length and that he will paraphase what he has to say. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate.

Mr. Janman: It occurs to me that it is normally Labour Members who are always calling for freedom of information. In quoting from this text, I am merely imparting information to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, referring to well meaning calls for racial tolerance, said:
The popular appeal of these speeches is often limited by the fact that they are delivered by people like me who patently do not have our tolerance tested day after day by intimate personal contact with the problems and difficulties which we urge others—white and coloured—to overcome.
He was reported to have said that:
Enoch Powell was right to argue that it was not so much the right of settlement which had created problems as the number of people who had exercised it.
Much more recently than 1975 my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) wrote an excellent article in the Sunday Telegraph in which he called for a voluntary and generously funded resettlement programme. Such a measure is not unique. I have already mentioned the initiative taken by the London borough of Camden. Although I support its principle, the complaints that I have about the initiative are that the amount of funding involved is far too measly and that it is discriminatory in that it gives the opportunity only to the Irish community and not to other ethnic communities. We should exercise that borough's principle on a national basis.

Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Janman: I do not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
A second example of that principle being carried out by Socialists—not just Conservatives—is France where for many years there has been a voluntary resettlement programme.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. I have been wondering when the Chair will direct him to address his remarks to the contents of the Bill. He has already spent 12 minutes talking in general terms and has not once addressed the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member knows from his considerable parliamentary experience, Second Reading debates are very wide. The hon. Member who has the floor is in order.

Mr. Janman: I was talking about the impact that the election of a Socialist president had on the voluntary resettlement programme in France, where the grant was increased from £1,000 per person to £15,000 per person for those who wished to return to the country of their origin. The scheme was so successful that in 1985 20,000 people left France under the auspices of the programme. In Germany there is also a civilised and humane method of reducing what is seen to be an unacceptably high immigrant population. A grant of £2,600 per head, plus a refund of pension contributions, is given to those immigrants, mainly Turks, who wish to return to their original country. About 20 per cent. of the Turkish immigrant population—about 300,000 people—has now gone. Belgium, another of our European Economic Community neighbours, has a scheme based on similar principles.
The Kohl Government in West Germany have made a commitment to halve the total of 4·5 million immigrants in West Germany without compulsion. I ask the Minister of State why we cannot start to move in that direction and why we cannot have a clause added to the Bill that will enable a similar objective to he met in this country under a British Conservative Government. Several noises of annoyance have been made by Labour Members, but the Labour party is extremely hypocritical on this point. Its leader went to India and made noises that would lead people to believe that the party's view was one thing, while its then shadow home affairs spokesman tried to assure people in this country that its policies would lead to only a small rise in immigration.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) really takes the biscuit when he goes on about immigration that took place hundreds of years ago from Britain into Ireland, and yet expects the British people to continue quite happily to accept mass immigration into their country now. No party has won a general election with a mandate to allow mass immigration. Yet we have now taken millions of legal and illegal immigrants. The true figure is unknown, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham stated back in 1975.
I welcome the Bill and the fact that it honours the commitment that we gave in the recent Conservative manifesto. I assure the Minister of State that it will be warmly welcomed by all my constituents, including many in the considerable Sikh community in Grays who, like the community that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough


(Mr. Watts) has in his constituency, can see the wisdom of firm and fair immigration controls which, if anything, go to protect their interests more than those of any other section of the community.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ernie Roberts, for his many years of service to the people of Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. He has many years left to work for the Labour movement, and I wish him every success in his work, endeavours and projects.
I rise to speak against the Bill. I have the distinction of both being the daughter of immigrants and representing a constituency in north-east London which, for more than a century, has been a classic centre where immigrants have been welcomed. My parents came to this country in 1950 as immigrants from rural Jamaica. Contrary to what Conservative Members might have us believe, they came—a whole generation of black and ethnic minority immigrants came—not to sponge, not to swamp anyone else's culture, not to provide objects of derision for Conservative Members, but to work. They came for a better life for their children. They also came with pride, as citizens of Britain and its Commonwealth, and believing in that citizenship.
In the quarter-century that has elapsed since 1950, to see what has happened to that notion of citizenship of Britain and its Commonwealth—that once proud ideal — is very sad indeed. We have seen increasing restrictions placed on movement, related to what are, in effect, quasi-racial categories: new Commonwealth, old Commonwealth, patrial and non-patrial. We all know what those categories really mean.
We have also seen an erosion of nationality rights. In my constituency, I have to deal every week with people who are frightened and confused by the new requirement to register. The squalid fact is that that requirement to register, at £60 a time, has made over £6 million for the Government. There has been a shortage of forms, there has been confusion, and there has been fear. None of that has been helped by some of the speeches that I have heard from Conservative Members this afternoon.
Above all, in the past quarter century we have encountered the notion that immigrants, far from being people who cross oceans in good faith seeking to work and seeking a better life, are a kind of plague or contagion. No measure is too botched up, too legally illiterate or too racist to keep them out. Immigration legislation in this country has a squalid and racist history, beginning with the first Aliens Act 1905, which was rushed into being, as some hon. Members will know, to keep out the victims of anti-semitic persecution in Russia, the Jewish victims of murder and pogroms in eastern Europe. As immigration legislation started, so it has gone on, and the Bill is no exception to that tradition.
All the Bill's provisions are unpleasant or unnecessary, or both. I shall not bother to go into the provisions to stop the "great plague of polygamy" that is apparently sweeping the country—particularly Slough, we gather. Even on the Government's figures there are only 25 cases a year, and there is no need for legislation to deal with that problem.
I shall not expand on the provisions that give more rights to immigration officers. Labour Members who deal with hundreds of cases a week know that, far from needing more rights, immigration officers systematically abuse the rights that they already have. Nor shall I expand on the provision that gives the Government power to charge immigrants in the future when they apply for indefinite leave to stay. Let me simply say that the Government intend to make money out of charging people who may have been here as students, and who are probably poor. I ask the same question about that as about the charge of £60 for the right to register: why should black people and other ethnic minorities, who have contributed to this country—who pay their rates and taxes—pay over and above that for their rights of citizenship?
I should like to speak at some length about what I consider the most pernicious and dangerous clauses in the Bill. Let me start by examining the number of limitations that it places on the right to appeal. Overstayers of fewer than seven years can be deported with no appeal, and the same applies to those who come to this country without a passport. These clauses cut across a fundamental principle of government and rule, which is that when people are deprived of basic rights by the Executive, namely immigration officers, they ought to have a right of appeal to the legislature, namely the courts.
I want to talk also about the other "great plague" that the Bill is intended to address, the "plague" of overstayers. The Bill makes overstaying a crime for the first time—not on the first day on which the individual knows that he has overstayed, not within three years, but in an absolute sense.
Contrary to what the frenzied protestations of some Conservative Members might lead us to believe, only 1 per cent. of visitors to this country annually overstay. Moreover, if all overstaying is made a crime—and we know who are the potential overstayers: they are the black and other ethnic minority residents—the police will be given a licence to harass those residents.
That is not only my view. When the issue was last debated in the House, Mr. William Whitelaw, as he then was, expressed from the Conservative Benches his reservations about allowing the police to become involved in what he described as a delicate matter. The Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration said that when it came to dealing with overstayers the role of the police should be minimised. People were aware that if overstaying was made a criminal offence in an absolute sense, the way would be opened for a pass law to be brought in through the back door. However, far from taking notice of their own Mr. Whitelaw and their own Committee, the Government choose not to minimise police involvement in overstaying, but to maximise it, and to criminalise whole sections of the community. We will see what damage that will cause to police community relations.
Let me conclude by referring to the provisions that would remove from those who came here before 1973 the right to bring in their families. We have heard Conservative Members talk about that provision as if it were an anomaly, as if it were a quirk of fate, or a misdrafting. Let me remind them, in case they have forgotten, that the right of settlers before 1973 to bring in their families without let or hindrance was a promise made by successive Tory Prime Ministers. Reginald Maudling and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond,


Yorks (Mr. Brittan), when they held the post of Home Secretary, promised during election campaigns that, whatever else happened, the right of people settled here before 1973 to bring in their families would be sacrosanct, but the Government have reneged on that promise.
The Government say, "We must see whether those people can afford to keep their families, and whether they have houses in which to put them." Far from African, Afro-Caribbean and Asian people rushing to bring their families in when they have no money to support them and nowhere for them to go, it is precisely because they are so anxious to give their families somewhere to live that so many Bangladeshi, African and Afro-Caribbean males have lived in one room and scrimped and saved for years. There is no evidence that people rush to bring in their families when they have no home and no money. All the evidence shows that they have suffered and deprived themselves, that they have had two jobs and worked night shifts, as well as triple shifts, in order to be united with their families.
Conservative Members have referred to the stress that is caused by arranged marriages. If they want to know about stress, they should sit in my surgery. I have heard of girls attempting suicide because they have had to wait so long for entry clearance for their fiancés. Elderly people, who have worked all their lives here, have been unable to bring their children to this country because of the immigration laws. I have seen parents who have had to face the fact that their children would be deported. Women have come to my surgery in tears because their husbands were to be deported.
Conservative Members talk about stress and human misery. This Conservative Bill, which will split families and cause great human misery, will lead to even greater stress. Let there be no more hypocritical talk about stress. The Bill takes away an absolute right to bring in families, and it flies in the face of the Tory boast that it is the party of the family. The, Bill is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary. It breaks a solemn promise. Furthermore, it is racist.
Conservative Members have shed many crocodile tears. They have said, "We need firm and fair immigration control to prevent unacceptable social tension, and we are introducing this Bill to help immigrants." The constant piecing together of incoherent and racist immigration laws that serve no real purpose apart from propaganda heightens tension and stress and makes people feel that they are unwanted. It does more to create division than anything else that I can think of.
Since I was a child, immigration legislation has been used as a vehicle for people to air their racism. This Bill was born out of racism and it will do nothing to improve community relations. It represents a breach of faith with a generation of people who came here with the best intentions and the highest hopes. Their aspirations, their family life and their children are constantly denigrated in the kind of debate and argument that is used to promote legislation of this kind. The Bill is a disgrace, and I urge the House to oppose it.

Mr. David Ashby: Much though I should like to remain in the House after making my speech, I have a long-standing commitment that unfortunately forces me to leave the Chamber immediately

afterwards. I apologise to the House. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not staying to hear the subsequent speeches.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) made a most eloquent speech. She spoke with much compassion and commitment and, indeed, with a great deal of knowledge. According to the traditions of the House, we had hoped to hear a little more about the marvellous things that arc being done in Hackney and Stoke Newington. We should have liked to hear more about what Hackney council is doing; we hear so much about it in the press. However, the hon. Lady did not refer to such pleasant matters. I am wondering whether that is because the hon. Lady feels that there is not much that can be said for that council.
However, the word "racial" was repeated with passion time and again, and I think that I should address myself to that matter. According to the hon. Lady, a great deal of unfairness and injustice has been perpetrated in the name of racial equality. The hon. Lady told the House about her origins, and said that she is the child of Jamaican immigrants. I have just as much right to speak as she; we have much in common. I was born in Maputo in Mozambique and came to this country as an immigrant at the age of 10. I am now a Member of Parliament, as is the hon. Lady. What more could be said about equality in this great country than that both of us are Members of Parliament and that we sit on opposite sides of the Chamber? It speaks volumes for the way in which successive Governments and generations have dealt with delicate and difficult immigration problems. We have assimilated waves of immigrants at different periods of our history, but difficulty has always arisen over the large number of immigrants.

Mr. Bernie Grant: The hon. Gentleman says that his party makes immigrants feel at home and that they are assimilated. Why, therefore, are there no black Conservative Members of Parliament?

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman is another example of how wonderful this country is. He is an immigrant. He was not born in this country.

Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) to he so nauseatingly patronising?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Ashby: It is the kind of intervention to which we have grown accustomed from the Greek chorus on the Opposition Back Benches.

Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West to describe Opposition Members as Greek?

Mr. Ashby: That is a very racist remark. I am sure that there have been Members of Parliament with Greek origins. One hon. Member was elevated to the other place and sits in the House of Lords. He is of Greek origin and is very proud of it. At the last election there were large numbers of Conservative candidates from the ethnic minorities. The fact that they are not Members of


Parliament is due to the democracy that brought the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington to this place.
My constituency has a very low immigrant population of about 0·03 per cent. Therefore I speak for the indigenous members of our community — the non-immigrants. As I am an immigrant, perhaps I am more qualified than most to do so.
I was quite surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) attacking the Bill on housing grounds as much as anything else and also apologising and saying that there must be local authority housing in his area to cope with the Bangladeshi immigrants. He will be aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on immigration stated that a year ago in Dhaka there were almost 12,500 people who had registered to come to this country and the majority of them said that they had relations in Tower Hamlets. No local authority could cope with that number. Indeed, the figure of 12,500 was thought to be an underestimate.
As many as 30,000 people are believed to want to come to this country and in particular to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. How could Tower Hamlets cope with up to 30,000 people? What effect would that influx have on the indigenous members of the right hon. Gentleman's community? What would have been the effect on race relations? What would have happened in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency if 30,000 people from Bangladesh had descended on Tower Hamlets? That is the kind of problem that all Governments have had to face and that is why we must have immigration laws and that is why we have had to control immigration.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashby: I will give way when I have finished this point.
It was a Labour Government who were the first to introduce immigration legislation in the big immigration measure, the Race Relations Act 1968.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is doing valiant service for his party in defending the entire party against his dinner appointment at 7.30 pm. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that he is talking nonsense, because the Immigration Act 1971 clearly gives a right of entry to dependent families from the Indian subcontinent? This Bill diminishes, if not removes, that right of entry. Bureaucratic delays by the Home Office have created this appalling queue of misery throughout Bangladesh. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to removing that queue of misery rather than raising this old canard of racist nonsense that he presumably reads in The Sun every day.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman wants to substitute a queue of misery in Bangladesh with a queue of misery in this country. That is asking far too much of the people of this country and too much of the cause of good race relations. To create such a queue in this country would provide the kind of emotional bloodbath that was suggested about 10 years ago. We have been able to achieve good racial harmony only because there have been restrictions.
The Labour party has always said one thing in opposition and quite another when in power. We are not

debating the immigration laws, although we are all aware that the Opposition would like to see the immigration laws removed. The Opposition are aware—they have been very tactful in this respect—that they would be hung, drawn and quartered by their own supporters if they enacted such a policy. We all remember too well that the Labour party conference in 1981 approved a motion opposing the Government's British Nationality Act 1981 on the ground that it continued the racist traditions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 — a Labour measure—and the Immigration Act 1971. The Labour party also said that the British Nationality Act 1981 was deliberately ambiguous in its definition of citizenship and thus gave unexplained discretion to the Home Office and immigration officials. There have been further debates on the strength of that.
Small wonder therefore that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Opposition spokesman on home affairs, had to state that his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was not correct in his interpretation of Labour party immigration policy. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook stated that the Labour party would increase immigration by about 1,000 people per annum.
That was stated during the election campaign. However, we are not really debating the immigration laws. In the Bill, we are concerned with closing the loopholes and of removing the manifest unfairness that exists in law at present. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned the clause that removes the rights of the second and third wives of polygamous manages to come to this country and said that there were only 25 cases.
It was Martin Luther King—

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman should not quote Martin Luther King.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his speech in his own way.

Mr. Ashby: It was Martin Luther King who said that injustice for one is injustice for all. One injustice is one too many and 25 injustices are 25 too many. Those people are jumping the queue. We have heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the queues of misery. Those people are all waiting and hoping to come to this country in the same way as Dick Whittington wanted to come to London because he thought that the streets were paved with gold. Many people are waiting in a long queue to come to this country, but others are jumping that queue. It would be a manifest injustice if the loophole were not closed.
Similarly, we must consider the people who have broken the rules of entry or who have overstayed. It has been argued that the decision by the courts that the offence is committed only on the day after those people knew that they were overstaying is overwhelming and should remain. However, the purpose of the legislation was to make that a continuing offence and the fact that it was not very well framed and allowed such an interpretation does not mean that the law should be changed. Everyone who overstays is breaking the law and jumping the queue.
Overstayers break the intention of the law and that is another injustice. That kind of injustice cannot be rectified through marriage when families with children seek asylum in a church; those people are still jumping the queue.


Anyone who overstays does so knowingly, and is aware that he is breaking the law. It should be a continuing offence.
It is manifestly wrong that arguments should be made against a proper section of the Bill intended to overcome that injustice. It is wrong to suggest that the section would license the police to harass the black community. We cannot have no-go areas either geographically or in the law. If the rules of entry are broken and a person overstays, it cannot be harassment on the part of police officers to go around—

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashby: Yes.

Mr. Turner: This will give the hon. Gentleman time to collect his papers. Does he agree that the Bill should contain a clause which provides for appeal against injustice in view of the misery caused to people who wish to bring their fiancées into the country? Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a case of injustice. That is what Opposition Members are complaining about. There is a lack of humanity and compassion and a failure to recognise that the lives of many thousands of people will be smashed as a result of this pernicious piece of legislation.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is now a great industry of advisers and quasi-lawyers who are preying on those who are attracted to this country. They demand a great deal of money to find loopholes in the law and to evade the intentions of Parliament. They enable people to jump the queue. That is the injustice. Opposition Members talk about compassion—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to complain that advisers are helping people to jump the queue when they are merely telling people what the law is?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to make a speech in the way that he wishes, and it is for us to listen to that speech. Hon. Members can all make their speeches if time permits.

Mr. Ashby: Of course, we must have a great deal of compassion for those who are waiting in the queue to come to this country. However, some people are preying upon others and encouraging them to jump the queue and come to Britain by pretending, for example, that they have British nationality. They are brought here only to have their hopes dashed. I am thinking particularly of the Tamils. It is very hard on those people, but it is right to have firm, proper laws which everyone understands, including those abroad, so that they know exactly where they stand.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove those acts of injustice. We have all heard of the sad cases of Filipino women advertising as brides. We must try to stop the loopholes and get back to some sanity. I do not believe that this will be the last Bill of its kind. I am sure that the people whom I have come across, who are looking for ways to get around the law and advising acts of illegality abroad—there are many cases of that—will look for ways to get around this legislation as well. No doubt the result will be that in five or 10 years there will have to be another Bill to cover further loopholes.
The intention of Parliament is paramount and the Bill carries out the intentions of Parliament in the previous legislation. It merely deals with unfairnesses and injustices and brings fairness and justice to all. That is the whole point of the measure.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on the content of her maiden speech, which was most appropriate to today's debate. She echoes the sentiments of most of us on this miserable measure and the Opposition's struggle to make a real contribution. It is among the Opposition that feelings about this are most profound. The Minister should pay close attention to that because he will have to deal with the details of these matters in the future. To me, the Minister is a newcomer. I have had long experience as a Member of Parliament in dealing with these matters, but so far I have had no experience of the new Minister with responsibility for immigration. I shall be happy to visit him before long for a heart-to-heart chat about how he might become an outstanding immigration Minister loved by the ethnic minorities. He is deemed to be not just the Minister for immigration but the Minister for race relations, and I am sure that he will fulfil his duties with great distinction.
I shall be brief, as I know that many Opposition Members, if not Conservative Members, wish to contribute to the debate, but I wish first to dwell a little on the background. In those far off days when I served as an Opposition Member on the Committee that considered the 1971 legislation, we knew that we were in for trouble. I readily deemed that legislation to be a racist measure because at the same time as human movement in the EEC, in western Europe, was being made freer, movement from the Commonwealth was being made more difficult. That was the essence of the situation and I led the first Opposition march in London in consequence of that.
Things have not improved since. Many of us were gravely disappointed that under the Labour Government of 1974–79 no major moves were made, although w hen Mr. Jenkins was Home Secretary he sought to mitigate the 1971 Act to some extent. That gave rise to a National Front march across London, the counteractivity of the liberalisation movement in which I was deeply involved, and the inquiry by Lord Scarman which emanated from that. It was the first time that racists and Fascists, leaning on the barbarities of the Nazis, had dared to march across London, and there are symptoms of that among Conservative Members. I say "symptoms" because the majority of Conservatives with whom I have had dealings over the years have wanted to do the decent thing. If they did the decent thing today, they would throw out this shabby Bill.
One of the things on which Conservative Members dote is the honouring of pledges. I well recall the Home Secretary in 1971—Mr. Maudling, whose memory is greatly revered by many Conservatives—making the categorical pledges to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington alluded in her brilliant speech. The Government are going back on those pledges.
We must remind ourselves that the Bill seeks to deal with a diminishing number of people as the whole issue was generated by the recruitment of cheap labour in the Caribbean and in the Indian sub-continent by, among


others, Mr. Powell, the former right hon. Member for Down, South recruiting labour for Britain's medical services when he was Health Minister. He was no paragon of virtue when he jumped on the bandwagon of racist activity succouring the National Front. I do not know how the present situation has arisen. The present Home Secretary was a reputed Tory wet of yesteryear, and I do not believe that his heart can be in the present measure. We need further mitigation and changes. The Labour party gave a categorical pledge to get rid of the British Nationality Act, which deprives children born in this country of the right automatically to be regarded as British citizens, and we talked about reviewing the 1971 Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), to his credit, said that nothing short of the repeal of that Act would do and I recall him making those assertions on a previous occasion.
The situation is being made harsher. In one of the last parliamentary questions before the general election, I asked the Prime Minister to disown any candidate who sought to stir up enmity between white and black people. That is exactly what measures of this kind do and what some, though not all, Tory candidates tried to do. Conservative Members know that that is so. The Bill is a backward step. The Minister should be seeking to meet the problems of the ethnic communities and to ease their difficulties in a practical way. Changes are needed in the rules. The primary purpose rule puts applicants wishing to come here into a clamp. The catch question is whether the applicant wishes to marry the woman just to obtain a job in Britain, as though that were a crime, or because he really loves her. Under the rule, the couple must already have met. The girl here may be a fiancée or already a bride. A child may even have been born, but still the authorities dig their heels in and claim that under the rule the husband wishes to go to Britain for economic reasons.
I must get another aspect of this off my chest today. As I have said before, the rules must be changed with regard to old people, who must be wholly or mainly dependent on someone in this country and have no other close relative to whom they can turn. That rule can be interpreted so widely as to include a daughter living 50 miles and many villages away and who never sees her mother, although there may be three sons in this country, one of whom feels an essential responsibility towards the woman who is the grandparent of his children here. All that must be sorted out. It all needs to be extended and changed so that there will be a little humanity. It is a matter not of figures, but of the human treatment of human beings.

Mr. David Winnick: It is a particularly offensive rule. The more an adult child tries to assist his aged parents overseas by sending money and the rest, the more he undermines the chances of his parent, or parents, being able to come here in their old age, because it would be argued that they are wholly or mainly dependent on a sponsor in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bidwell: I know that my hon. Friend has considerable experience in such matters, as do many Opposition Members.
I appeal to the better Tories to do the right thing, simply be reiterating that it was a piece of electioneering. It was designed to show that a Tory Government would

be tougher on immigration than a Labour Government. That was what it was all about. It was designed to divide black workers from white workers. It was designed to divide white workers. That letter on Tory notepaper sent to Mr. Piers Merchant in Newcastle was designed to try to save his seat and to be part and parcel of an intended Tory victory based on confusion in such matters.
Tory Members should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for bringing this miserable Bill to the House. I invite the best of them to screw its scruffy neck.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have great pleasure in congratulating the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on her maiden speech. She accused Conservative Members of some hypocrisy, and I would be fulfilling that description if I pretended to agree with everything that she said. It was indeed an eloquent speech and I am sure that she will serve her constituency well. I am glad to see her in the House if only as another of the 41 women Members.
I support the Bill. I look not to its immediate enactment or even to its effect a few years hence, but well into the future—20 or 25 years. What sort of society do we want at that time? Do we want a society in which racial harmony is so normal that it is the accepted thing, and we cannot imagine a time when it did not exist? Do we want a society in which the immigrant population and the host community are fully integrated and do not notice each other's colour or racial origins as something special or different? Do we want a common community in which it will be perfectly natural for members of the immigrant community to sit in the House as Members of Parliament representing among their constituents both the host community and the immigrant community, a community in which white people will speak for black people and black people will speak for white people, and for that to be accepted as normal?
Without wishing to disparage a maiden speech, I must say that my major criticism of the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is that we should have heard more about the interests of her constituents who belong to that host community, as well as about the interests of her constituents who are members of the immigrant community.

Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Lady assist the House? What is to be described as the host community and what is to be described as the guest community? Am I a host or a guest, having been born in this country? These are highly emotive and insulting phrases and the hon. Lady ought to mind her language. It does the hon. Lady and her considerable abilities no service to talk in such a way.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington consistently spoke about the immigrant community, I imagine that she made the division, and I was trying to find an acceptable alternative to describe the indigenous community. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was offended, but I think that it is perfectly all right to comment on a division made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington.
In 20 to 25 years will we have that sort of harmonious society, or will we have a society in which immigrants and, for want of a better word, host, indigenous whites


—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—look at each other with distrust? Do we want a society in which every action of the police is regarded somehow as harassment and provocation, when it is carried out in the normal course of investigations of crime? Do we want a society in which grievances are encouraged and the rights of the immigrant community are continually advanced as being in conflict with the rights of the indigenous population?
If we want a harmonious society in which we could not believe that anyone even thought of discriminating on grounds of race, we must work out the best way to work towards it. In doing so, we cannot ignore the necessity of providing reassurance to the immigrant community, that we shall ensure that racial discrimination is against the law, as it is, and that there is no difference whatever between the different sections of the population, and to those sections of the population which regard themselves as the host community, that we shall carefully protect their traditions and take their worries seriously. That second point is important.
I do not have a large immigrant population in my constituency, but for two years I contested a constituency which did. Nobody ever came to my surgery and churned out the sort of nonsense that I often hear attributed to us. I never hear people say, "We don't want these people here. We want them sent back." I never heard that sort of nonsense. However, I heard consistent representations to the effect that people were worried that, for example, 80 per cent. of a class of children did not speak English as their first language.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where was that?"] That is a worry; it is not a statement of prejudice or dislike.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I shall not give way now, although I may later.

Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I have said that I will not give way and I ask the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to observe the order of the House. In reply to the sedentary interventions coming at me, the answer is Burnley in Lancashire.

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to cast aspersions on schools in Burnley in Lancashire without naming the school concerned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a point of argument. It is not a point of order for me.

Miss Widdecombe: What the hon. Gentleman has just said entirely illustrates my point. It is not an aspersion that 80 per cent. of a class do not speak English as their first language, and it should not be regarded as such in a society that is truly integrated. If we are to have a society in which that sort of statement is not regarded as an aspersion, we need to have some practical enactment or reassurance.

Mr. Boateng: Is this it?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, this Bill is it. Most of the objections that I have heard tonight, which I believe to be valid and to have force, are about the practical enactment of the provisions on the length of detention and the nature of interviews. Those are valid objections, but they can be

addressed at their own level. They do not invalidate the Bill. It is a question of tightening the practice, not the principles of the Bill.
We have heard objections to several parts of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a valid point about asylum, and I hope that it will be addressed in the replies to the debate. Apart from that, it seems that those who argue against the new provisions and penalties for overstaying are effectively saying that the longer one gets away with it, the more all right it should be, and that we should not penalise people if they have been getting away with overstaying for longer than others. That is an upside down way of looking at the law. Overstaying may be a continuing offence because it is not a once only offence. One does not overstay simply on the day when one's permit runs out. If one continues to overstay, one continues to recommit the offence. If we are to make overstaying an offence — if Opposition Members wish to see it removed completely as an offence, that is one sort of argument — it seems perfectly reasonable to enact the law fairly and universally. It does not cease to become an offence simply because it has been going on for rather a long time.
I accept wholly the argument that if an overstayer is being sent back after a fair period of time in the United Kingdom, it can cause genuine heartache. I accept that people can become attached to the country, put down roots, have a family, make a way of life, want the best for their children and not want to return to their land of origin. But all those considerations apply in the deliberations of any offence. There is always suffering when an offence is discovered and brought to book. However difficult it may be, if overstaying is an offence—I accept that for Opposition Members a completely different argument is philosophically tenable—we must reasonably require that the law is enforced.
We have heard about the 25 cases of polygamy—not a great many—and I wonder that they are worth all the fever and heat that they have generated among Opposition Members. But, speaking as a woman, I find polygamy and arranged marriages wholly at odds with what the European Court of Human Rights has said about the equality of women. Both are offensive and should be particularly offensive to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, as she, too, is a woman.
Essentially the Bill seeks to plug gaps, not to introduce an entirely new philosophy, and to plug gaps is to reassure. A future of racial harmony depends on reassuring equally both immigrants and those who regard themselves as the hosts.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I will not.

Miss Lestor: As a sister?

Miss Widdecombe: I cannot resist that.

Miss Lestor: So that I may follow the hon. Lady's arguments closely, will she explain whether a black person born in this country is an immigrant or a member of the host community?

Miss Widdecombe: If my understanding of the law is correct, such a person would be a member of this country.—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would be quiet, they may be given an answer to the question. Do hon. Members want an answer?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—


Then listen. Such a person is a member who has immigrant origins but who has become a member of the host community.

Mr. Boateng: I thank the hon. Lady. Now I know what I am.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would enlighten me at some time, because I am not sure what he is.
Labour Members on the Opposition Back Benches have been inaccurately described as the Greek chorus. The purpose of a Greek chorus is to introduce melodic euphony into proceedings. I have not noticed any of that being introduced tonight. The reactions of Labour Members bode ill for the future of race relations in this country because any mention of the word "immigrant" from Conservative Members is racist, but when they mention it they are expressing a legitimate grievance. Any mention of "host community" from Conservative Members is racist, but when Labour Members condemn that community they are again expressing a legitimate grievance. Until we all start acknowledging that there are problems caused by immigration and that we all want to overcome them and want a society where in 25 years we will no longer be talking in these terms, we have to reassure both sections of the community.
I stand by my contention that the Bill is the answer to a lot of worry and fear on the part of one section of the community and that it will not materially harm anybody in the other section of the community, except those who deliberately seek to violate the law.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on her eloquent speech. We have witnessed a piece of history as she is the first black woman to speak in the Chamber.
I am worried by some of the comments made by Conservative Members and I wonder whether we should suggest at business questions that a racism awareness course be introduced for Conservative Members. Conservative Governments have an obsession with restricting the rights of black and Asian people. It is an obsession born out of prejudice.
The Bill is another example of a refusal by the Government to accept that Britain is a multiracial society and that people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin should have the same right to family life and family unity as others. As has happened many times before, those who are least able to help themselves will be made scapegoats and will be punished. The police, so often placed in near impossible situations of racial tension — situations created by the policies of the Government—will have to intervene to separate black and Asian families and to criminalise them because they want to stay united.
At a meeting organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the Palace of Westminster a couple of weeks ago, the Home Secretary declared uneasily that the Bill would be controversial. I am certain that there was a substantial element of guilt in that statement. The Home Secretary has to pander to the fanatical elements in his party. That is the

best way to get on in the Conservative party. After many years of being responsible for the immigration service, the right hon and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) was rewarded with a higher office. After whipping the black and Asian community, he now spends his time whipping the Conservative Back Benches.
Hon. Members will recall that, during the election campaign, Conservative Members, especially the Prime Minister, were keen to be associated with the black and Asian community. Hon. Members will recall the poster campaign launched during the 1983 election campaign with pictures of black and Asian people with the slogan saying:
Labour says he's black—we say he's British.
There was no hint then that the black Briton—whether guest or host, I am not sure—would be robbed of his rights of citizenship. Hon. Members will know that the Prime Minister is a patron of the Durbar club, ostensibly an Asian business man's club. In an article in the Sunday Times on 2 October 1983 we were told:
Most members see the success of the Asian trading community in Britain as being due to hard work and dedication in a strange country where they have had to try harder to succeed, and to the quality of humility, central to the Asian way of business. Of course, the closeness of the family is in the end seen as a key element to trading and to uniting the community for success.
I hope that hon. Members will realise that the Bill will go against the whole nature of the family unity. What hypocrisy and double standards. The Conservative party fraternises with the Asian community at election time and stabs it in the back when the elections are over. If one is white and wants to bring a wife into this country, nobody cares. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said, one can advertise. An advertisement was published in one of yesterday's newspapers. It said:
Meet beautiful Phillippine girls. Choose from hundreds of lovely ladies like Rosemarie for friendship and marriage. Whatever your age and circumstances.
I would have asked the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and the Home Secretary, if they were not out having dinner somewhere else, whether that case would come under the primary purpose rule or does it not apply when white people seek to bring wives into this country?
Every hon. Member here today who represents inner city seats knows what it is like to be involved in an immigration surgery. We can compare notes on the hours it takes us to work through immigration cases. Since 11 June, I have taken up over 1,000 immigration cases at my surgery in Belgrave road. Leicester. Yesterday morning 157 people called for advice and assistance. They were in a panic and in utter confusion over their rights of citizenship and settlement. Every day projects such as the Leicester rights centre, the self-help project, the Belgrave residents association and the citizens' advice bureaux are inundated with queries on immigration and nationality.
It is impossible for any hon. Member to remain detached from the suffering of his or her constituents unless the hon. Member happens to come from Slough. Families called Patel, Chouhan, Omarji, Singh, Parmar and Lakhani are just names on the Home Secretary's computer, but to me and to their families and friends those names cannot be recited without deep emotion.
I want to bring to the attention of the House two cases that will be affected by the Bill. First, Mr. Reed came to the United Kingdom on 27 September 1982 aged 15. He came for medical treatment. He arrived from St. Vincent where the treatment was unavailable. He needed an


artificial limb, having walked on crutches following amputation at the age of six. He was given six months leave to enter. He forgot to apply for an extension before his leave ran out. He subsequently applied and was refused. He had no right of appeal because he had overstayed. However, he had a right of appeal against deportation at which he argued the compassionate circumstances of his case. There were numerous circumstances. He needs permanent, continuing treatment in the form of maintenance and repair of his limb. He supports the household of his sister who is a single parent, his family in St. Vincent can no longer look after him, and he is employed and they are not. Under the Bill, Mr. Reed would have no right of appeal on the merits of his case.
The second case is that of Mr. Mohammed. He came to Britain in 1965 from Bangladesh. His wife and two of his children joined him in 1982 and he is now applying for his third child to join him. He worked in the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years paying tax and national insurance out of his wages, but he claimed no benefits—neither the married man's tax allowance nor child benefit. He is now exercising his rights, preserved under the Immigration Act 1971. He is trying to bring in his son. Under the Bill he would he unable to do so, because he would not be able to show that he could look after his family without recourse to public funds.
This is a squalid, unnecessary and unwanted Bill. It represents all that is rotten and racist about Conservative immigration law. I came here 21 years ago, when I was nine years old, from a colony called Aden, to where my parents had gone from Bombay—not from Greece. I came on promises that were made to those born in what was one of the last posts of the British empire. The 1971 Act promised to Commonwealth citizens those same rights, but the Bill breaks those promises.
Conservative Members proceed without compassion, with no regard for the harshness and bitterness of the queue, lacking even the most basic understanding of the effect of their policies on black and Asian families. They are utterly inflexible when confronted with legitimate criticism.
Those who have spoken against the Bill want to bring to the attention of the House the misery of those who wait in the queue and are subjected to horrifying delays—those who are, in the words of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, "out of sight." Thousands of people want what we have—the right to enjoy a family life. They are denied it and we speak for them.
Moving the Second Reading of the Immigration Bill in 1971, the then Home Secretary, who has been quoted so often in this debate, said:
I commend the Bill to the House as a Bill carrying out faithfully the undertakings which we made at the time of the General Election … as a Bill which has been misinterpreted, no doubt unintentionally because of its complication; a Bill which does not affect the community already here and, above all, a Bill which is justified as a contribution to helping us to get the framework and the atmosphere in this country within which alone we can hope that the work of organising unity between the various communities can successfully progress."—[Official Report, 8 March 1971; Vol, 813, c. 57.]
Subsequent events have proved him hopelessly wrong. Good community relations are too important to be put at risk by this legislation. I am certain that the black and Asian community in Britain will mobilise against the Government and that the verdict of history will be very harsh indeed

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: This is a sector of policy that has interested and concerned me for a number of years. There is little in past immigration measures of which Conservative or Labour Members can be proud. Some of them I have described in other places as being reprehensible. Some of them clearly have been racist in intent. One of the worst examples was the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which has been referred to by hon. Members.
During the 1979 election campaign, as a candidate I dissociated myself from some of the contents of the Conservative party manifesto. It was badly thought through and it caused offence and worry to the "immigrant population"—there has been a long debate about what we mean by that—in the constituency in which I was a candidate.
Having looked at the measures in the manifesto during the election and those in the Bill, having read very carefully what was being said by organisations, such as Greater London Action for Racial Equality and JCWI, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and by Harrow Community Relations Council, I wondered whether we were going down the same road and with the same sort of approach that I had opposed before. The worries that have been put forward by those organisations and the views that we have heard from Labour Members are a storm in a teacup. This is a package of modest tidying-up measures, yet they are being described in terms that are so ludicrous that they defy description.
What is the worst aspect of what we have been hearing from those organisations and Labour Members? They have stirred up worries for people who will not be affected by this measure. I listened to the LBC radio station recently, when the solicitor who gives advice was present, and his two-hour programme was taken up by people telephoning and asking, "Will I be affected by this new Immigration Bill? I have been told that I will be thrown out of the country if the Bill is passed." Time and again the solicitor had to explain that the Bill would not affect them.
The same is true of my constituency mailbag. I have received many letters from people who have believed the nonsense put about by GLARE and JCWI, which tried to turn this into an election issue and failed—certainly in my constituency. Fears have been stirred up that do not exist. That is what I deplore most about the actions, of Labour Members.
Immigration laws must be well understood and clear. I recognise the sentiment of the hon. Member for Leicester, East about the hours that it takes to try to get through the complexities of an immigration case — someone who is under the threat of deportation or someone who is concerned because another member of the family is not to be allowed to enter the country. Sometimes two identical cases are dealt with in different ways, and one wonders why that is. But the law is not understandable. This measure will help some of those cases because the law will be made more understandable. It may make the law tougher, but the reality of the matter is that people will understand the rules by which they can enter Britain. That is particularly true with regard to clause 1.
I do not want to discuss constituency cases, but what worries me is the recent ruling of the European Court of


Human Rights, which said that section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 was sexually discriminatory. One constituent of mine will be directly helped by the Bill, so, for her, the quicker it comes on to the statute book the better.
The provisions of clause 3 are reasonable. Why should people who have no right to enter come to this country and expect to be allowed in if it can be established on the ground in other countries—I recognise the difficulties in that regard — that they should not embark on an aircraft? That would certainly be the case if any of us wanted to enter certain countries. When working in foreign countries I have had to deal with their immigration rules, which are tough, so I see no reason why the Government should not introduce this measure.
Some Labour Members have completely missed the point. Good race relations are the issue that we should be discussing. Good race relations are what this modest measure is all about. I want to reflect what was said to me during the election campaign by members of the ethnic minorities who live in my constituency. There is a large Asian population in south Harrow, Pinner and even in the stockbroker belt of Hatch End. When I was canvassing door-to-door they did not raise matters of immigration. I had a huge mailbag during that election campaign, but I did not have one letter about immigration policy. I received many letters from Asian parents who were desperately concerned about education. They were worried that what had happened in Ealing and Brent might spread into the borough of Harrow. They were concerned about things that affected their families — jobs, inflation and education.
As the hon. Member for Leicester, East said, they were concerned about protection from discrimination, racial attacks and harassment. When hon. Members read in Hansard what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said, they may think that the Bill will lead to racial attacks and harassment. That is a most offensive way of describing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke in generalised and silly terms about the measure. It is no wonder that he did not go into detail or attempt to deal with each clause individually. The hon. Gentleman made allegations which he knows are not true.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the proposals will lead to mass immigration and that that will not lead to good race relations. Let us consider Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is here. Leicester has experienced massive immigration. Almost 60,000 Asians have come to Leicester in the last 20 years. Race relations in Leicester are excellent. Each community respects the culture of the other.

Mr. Hughes: I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says, apart from his first words. When hon. Members read Hansard they will see that there is no relationship between the first words uttered by the hon. Gentleman and anything that I have said so far. Again, the hon. Gentleman is simply seeking to misrepresent and make points that have no bearing on the Bill.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of making allegations. Some minutes ago in his own speech

the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) referred to section 1(5) of the Bill and said that he knew of at least one person—I understood that the person was female—who would welcome the Bill. Why would she welcome it when it restricts the rights of males rather than extends the rights of females?

Mr. Hughes: It would help if the hon. Gentleman read the Bill. He talks of section 1(5). I was referring to section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971, not this Bill, although I did talk about clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. The hon. Gentleman had his chance and he messed it up. He is referring to something that is not in the Bill. I am talking about clause 1. That will be clear in Hansard.
The 1983 campaign has been misrepresented. I fail to understand the arguments. How can it be racist to say that a person is British, as Conservatives say? Members of the Labour party say that the same person is black. The Labour party is intent only on dividing the nation. We say that people who are in this country are British, whether they are black, Asian or caucasian. If one seeks to create a divide between those people, as the Labour party seeks to do, that is racist. The Opposition do not like to accept that, but it is true.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Conservative propaganda in the 1983 election campaign? Conservatives said that they intended to tighten the immigration rules to keep people out in order to look after the people already here. They talked about improving race relations. Can the hon. Gentleman name one single action that the Conservative Government have taken to improve the lot of the black minority in Britain?

Mr. Hughes: The British Nationality Act conferred the right of abode and British citizenship on people who had never had that right and who had been denied it by previous Labour and Conservative Governments. They were given that right for the first time. That is what happened, and that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Pat Wall: The hon. Gentleman says that we make a distinction between British citizens and black citizens. Under the Government's legislation, 220 million people in the Common Market have more rights than British citizens and 9 million patrials in white Commonwealth countries have rights that are denied to black people, and yet he says that there is not something different between a black and a British citizen.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his opposition to membership of the European Community. He is entitled to that view, but the matter is outside the Bill and he knows it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that there is no question of the Bill being racist because black Frenchmen are entitled to come here without restriction, as are white Frenchmen. That might be wrong, but it certainly is not racist.

Mr. Hughes: That is a more than sufficient answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall).
A Bill which affects race relations is now being examined by a Standing Committee. It is not a Home Office Bill; it is a Department of the Environment Bill. I


refer to the Local Government Bill, clauses 17 and 18 of which repeal part of the Race Relations Act. People have different views about that, but I regret that provision and I hope that the Home Office is examining it. It would be unfortunate to take away local authority powers to promote good race relations. The principle of the Bill is welcomed by Conservative Members, but I am not talking about the principle. I hope that the Home Office will make representations to the Department of the Environment and that clauses 17 and 18 will be reconsidered.
Time has moved on since we heard the Opposition's arguments. It is like being in a time warp. Backwards and forwards across the Chamber we have heard arguments about who is British and who is not, and what a host community is. I am sad to hear such matters mentioned because one must make a simple declaration—most black and Asian people in this country are as British as I am. Most of them were born here. Most of those who live here but were not born here have lived here for a long time. That must be recognised by hon. Members on both sides. We must stop the silly debate about what a host community is. I am not getting at the Opposition, or the Government, in particular. The debate is sterile. We shall achieve a society that sticks together and succeeds when that is in the forefront of everyone's mind and we try to work together.
Some of the Opposition's arguments lead me to the sad conclusion that they are interested not in good race relations, but simply in a good argument and row about immigration proposals that are modest, fair and reasonable and will not he opposed by the black community in my constituency at least.

Mr. Max Madden: This is a sad parliamentary occasion. It is made sadder by the spectacle of a Government whose declared aims and objectives seem to be completely contradicted by the aims and objectives of the Bill. For many years the Government have told us — most recently at the general election — that they believe in family life and unity, yet the Bill will divide families and, for some, destroy all hope of living together in Britain. For many years the Government have told us — most recently at the general election that — they believe in individual freedom, yet the Bill introduces new restrictions and removes rights of appeal from many people who are oppressed by the state. For many years the Government have told us—most recently at the general election — that they believe in promoting better community and race relations, yet the Bill will undoubtedly make that task harder, not least because it requires the police to pursue overstayers, which will lead inevitably to complaints of harassment and may provide further sparks for community conflict.
We have heard much about section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. Successive Home Secretaries, of both Governments, have, rightly, endorsed the clear commitment that was made in section 1(5). We have not been told about the overriding reasons for the repeal of that important promise that was given to people settled here before 1973.
In the notorious letter to Piers Merchant—penned, significantly, in the middle of the general election campaign—the Home Secretary said:
The Government is committed to changing Section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 following a decision by the

European Court of Human Rights that its effect is sexually discriminatory. The provision gives an absolute right to those settled here before January 1st 1973 to bring in their wives and children. This provision very significantly complicates the operation of our immigration control and in particular means that many people can come into the country without having to meet the normal maintenance and accommodation requirements of the Immigration Rules. The Government believes, therefore, that there is a strong argument for change.
That strong argument was not deployed by the Home Secretary in his letter to Piers Merchant, nor was it deployed by the Minister of State in his article entitled "Firm but fair controls", which appeared in The Guardian on Friday. The drift of the article was disingenuous. On section 1(5) the Minister said:
What principle justifies a child born on December 31, 1972 having different rights in relation to bringing a wife or children to settle here in the future from one born the following day?
The principle is the promise which was made by a Conservative Home Secretary, and which has been repeated by Conservative and Labour Home Secretaries during the 16 years between that Act and the Government's reneging on the promise by this Bill.
In 1982 Lord Whitelaw supported that principle. He said:
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook rightly referred to the danger of breaking up families. I remind him, however, that the Government have remained firmly committed, as they said they would, to allowing in the wives and dependent children of men settled here. The new rules did not in any way affect the continued acceptance of wives and children. Nor have the Government any intention of going hack on that commitment."—[Official Report, 28 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 644.]
It will be interesting to see how the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) votes on the Bill, because he was Prime Minister when those clear promises and undertakings were given to men who had settled here before 1973. It will be interesting to see how the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), a former Conservative Home Secretary, votes, because he repeated the promise. It will be interesting to see how the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) votes, because he gave the promise, too. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my noble Friend Lord Callaghan also repeated those undertakings.
There is no compelling argument for the changes, except the overriding need of the Government, who have urged themselves on since 1972, to stop as many black and Asian people as possible from coming into Britain. They decided that a neat way of stopping some more would be to repeal section 1(5) of the Immigration Act. Those who have the misfortune to be unemployed or to live in modest accommodation will lose their right—their expectation—to have their families joining them here. The promise has been broken. Many will be from Bangladesh, but others will come from other parts of the Indian sub-continent.
Many references have been made to the Opposition creating needless fear and alarm. In his letter to Piers Merchant, the Home Secretary mentioned the introduction of visas for visitors. He said:
We shall continue with a policy of firm controls., equitably administered and operated in a humane and compassionate manner. I am glad that the introduction of visa controls last year on visitors from India, Pakistan. Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria has gone smoothly and is


clearly seen not to have adversely affected the rights of legitimate visitors. The trouble makers and the professional pessimists have been proven wrong again.
The Home Secretary may have been describing me as a trouble maker and professional pessimist, but I have been proved right. Before the introduction of visas I said that it was a deliberate and racist attempt to stop black and Asian people from visiting their relatives and friends. The official figures for July show that 12,000 men, women and children were refused visas, and I will make a small bet with the Secretary of State that the 12-month figures show that upwards of 20,000 men, women and children have been refused visas to visit their relatives and friends. That refusal rate represents a doubling of the refusal rate for visitors coming to Britain before the introduction of visas.
The ombudsman is investigating a complaint from me on behalf of a constituent about why it took seven months for our embassy in Islamabad to grant a visa to a 10-year-old boy to visit his uncle in my constituency. The ombudsman's inquiry seems to be taking almost as long as the entry clearance officials in Islamabad to issue that visa.
I am sad that the Home Secretary turned the screw a little further tonight by announcing that the maximum period for which a visitor can remain in Britain will be six months. The only reason for that was to stop bits of paper floating around Lunar house. I often have the impression that Lunar house cannot be seen for bits of paper floating inside and out. If the Minister thinks that the introduction of a 50 per cent. reduction in the time that visitors can remain here will result in a decrease in the number of bits of paper, I must tell him that as a result of his announcement tonight there will be a large increase in the number of bits of paper written by hon. Members who represent constituents such as mine. The second objective of the introduction of visa controls is to stop Members of Parliament from having any ability to intervene on behalf of their constituents whose relatives and friends are refused visits to this country.
In conclusion, I must add my voice to those of my hon. Friends who have described the Bill as a squalid little measure that is all about introducing new restrictions. Sadly, it takes no opportunity to buttress existing rights—still less to create new ones.

Mr. Tony Baldry: rose—

Mr. Madden: I shall not give way, as I want to finish.
I would have much preferred the Home Secretary to come to the House to introduce guaranteed time limits, for instance, by which entry clearance applications could be considered. I should have liked him to come here with new appeal procedures that provided speedy opportunities for people to appeal against refusals, to give them a proper opportunity to present their cases to the authorities. As we all know, the number of appeals that are successful is substantial, which underlines the inferiority of many of the administrative decisions that are taken. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said. I should dearly have liked the Home Secretary to come to us with new provisions to ensure that many more elderly parents and grandparents could come

to this country to live out their remaining days with their families, who are settled in this country and are making an important contribution to its economic and social life.
This squalid, nasty Bill breaks firm promises that were initially made 17 years ago and have been repeated over the years. Many Conservative Members have asked why we object to the Bill so much. It is because many of the people who received those promises believed in them. That is why they do not believe Ministers who stand at the Dispatch Box and say that those who do not seek to register as British citizens will not lose any rights or benefits. The people concerned do not believe that. When one breaks solemn promises that were made 17 years ago, can one be surprised at not being believed? If we are serious about the business of building and promoting better community and race relations, we can build only on the basis of mutual confidence. That confidence is smashed when promises are smashed. We can build only on the basis of mutual trust, and when promises are broken it, too, is broken.
The Bill does not show the way to achieving good community and race relations in our country. We should be building confidence, creating new rights and defending existing ones, not introducing a squalid, unnecessary and unjustified Bill, which underlines that notice which so many black and Asian people have embedded in their minds — "You are not welcome here". That is the message of the Bill, and it is one that I wish we had not been given today.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who is no longer in the Chamber. The hon. Lady served with me on Westminster city council, where we became used to her contributions, which were always intensely interesting, if not always based as much on logic as emotion.
The hon. Lady is also one of the small minority of women in the House. Some of us feel from time to time that the facilities in this place discriminate against us, and that, by failing to select more women candidates, the population has shown itself a little prejudiced against women. However, whereas the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington might call for legislation to correct that, I would grant people the right to their prejudices. It is foolish to try to legislate to control people's natural wish to keep the company of one sort of person or another. There is nothing wrong with that—it is a perfectly natural way for people to feel.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) who said that he had to spend so much of his surgery time sorting out the Patels from the Khans who want to come and stay here. I deplore the fact that these decisions sometimes rest on a degree of fabrication. Occasionally, people have to manufacture reasons to be able to come and stay here. The decision rests with a bureaucracy that may well be unsympathetic to the individual concerned, and I deplore that.
An example from my own constituency comes to mind. Before I became an hon. Member I helped a gentleman—in my capacity as a councillor—to bring his sister into the country. I subsequently learned that he had set up a household and a family, and that the person concerned was probably not his sister. He had used that ruse merely to get me to help him bring her into the country.
I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) who said that we need stronger arguments for a change in the legislation. Since the 1970s, the House has regularly got itself into a tizzy about immigration. The Bill is another attempt to patch up what is obviously a leaky ship. Those leaks deeply concern many of the indigenous people of this country who are worried that, in some areas, their society is being fundamentally changed by the culture of a people from far away.
Even Labour councils such as Camden must sometimes acknowledge the burden that the problem places on our community. Camden council is trying to send back to other countries people who have landed themselves on its doorstep and asked for accommodation to be provided at the ratepayers' expense. As councillors in Westminster, we were constantly up against that problem. Sometimes we had to house families from abroad—I remember in the not-too-distant past a family of 10 members which came from an African country and cost our council thousands of pounds in accommodation, because under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 we were forced to take responsibility for it.
I sympathise, and I should be surprised if other hon. Members — including Opposition Members — did not share my sympathy, with the feelings of the citizens of this country who believe that people can arrive here and climb on to a raft of welfare benefits for which the indigenous population has already paid out of its earnings.
It is wrong that the discussion about immigration is always based on paternity, nationality and whether relatives are already living here. It is nonsense for us to offer rights in perpetuity to certain people to come here. I do not believe that we have such obligations to people in countries in which our writ does not run, and whose laws are not governed by this Parliament. To accept such a responsibility would be an open-ended commitment by this country's citizens to support people who have decided that they may have a better standard of life here.
We should have other criteria on which to decide who should or should not come to live in our country. There are places in other parts of the world where that is done. It is clear that citizenship of our country is a great prize, which many millions of people would dearly love to possess, but that does not mean that we have to award that prize on the basis of long since finished obligations that our country once undertook. There is another method of dealing with such a valuable prize—

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Lady mentioned the lack of rights of people who come from countries where our writ does not operate. Will she explain to the House when our writ finished? She said that it has long since passed. What is the cut-off point for our writ?

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is asking me for precise detail or a date. From the time when we no longer had an obligation to those countries, we were extremely unwise to extend British citizenship to them, but that is a fact of the past. I am talking about immigration control in the future. I am putting before the House the proposition that, as many people wish to come and it is absurd to suggest that we can accommodate them all, we should instead prize and value our citizenship so that those who can demonstrate their ability to support themselves and their families, if they are allowed to bring them, should be permitted to come here on the basis of paying for that privilege.
At the moment our citizens often pay for the cost of people who wish to settle here, but cannot support themselves. One cannot settle in Jersey, Guernsey, Switzerland, Monaco, or half a dozen other countries unless the judiciary and the Government of that country decide on the individual case and unless one can demonstrate that one has substantial resources to support oneself. A case might well be made for that principle to apply here. That would remove a great deal of the legitimate concern of our citizens, who sometimes feel that they are being swamped with people who arrive here without resources and make demands on our very limited housing, education facilities and job opportunities.
As we know, in many parts of the country unemployment is still acute, although we also know that the situation is improving day by day. We shall begin to improve our education system by giving more choice to parents. I greatly sympathise with the parents of Dewsbury whose children were sent to a school in which the dominant language and culture had altered substantially—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It should not—[Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to a hearing.

Mrs. Gorman: It is understandable that our citizens often feel that they have those worries thrust upon them. If our education system is more diverse, as our Government intend to make it, and if it becomes possible for parents to choose the school for their children rather than be directed there by a heavy-handed Labour authority, that will alleviate some of those people's fears. But we still do not have an open-ended obligation to take people into our country just because they would like to come here.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does not my hon. Friend agree that all the babble on the Opposition Benches is indicative of the fact that the Opposition do not have a policy in this area? For example, is it not strange that when the Leader of the Opposition went to India he had to have a visa, but when we imposed a similar requirement on visitors coming here the Opposition could not even agree to that?

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) referred to the Common Market. Our laws are being harmonised, whether we like it or not, with those of the EEC. The citizens of Europe have rights to come here, as we have rights to go to their countries. That is entirely different from allowing open immigration for not only individuals, but their extended families so that they can come here and settle among us.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The hon. Lady talks about fairness and open immigration. I should like to give an example of a case that I dealt with in Manchester, in which a woman had waited so long to come to this country from Pakistan that she gave birth to a baby before she could come here. The baby did not show on the passport. That poor woman, who came from a village, was put on an aeroplane and the baby was kept in Pakistan by the immigration authorities. She had to go through the humiliation of proving that she had given birth and had been breast feeding a baby. If the hon. Lady were that woman, would she be in a tizz, as she put it?

Mrs. Gorman: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. He brings to our attention a case where lack of humanity and compassion are demonstrated, but that is because of the law as it stands, which discriminates against people coming to this country on the grounds of paternity and family relationships. I advocate a system that would allow people to come here in their own right, by permission of the host society, if they can demonstrate that they can support their relatives—whoever is allowed to come—under the terms of the legislation.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is often a lack of humanity and compassion. We have heard from Opposition Members that sometimes families who wish to look after elderly relatives are kept apart, but there is no reason why those families should not be reunited in their country of origin. There is no reason why this country should accept into its welfare and pensions structure people who have spent the rest of their lives contributing their work effort to a different society.

Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Lady may be alluding to my contribution to the debate. I feel deeply about the matter as the Member for Southall. If the son is getting a livelihood here and making an important and valuable contribution to the British economy, and if he still feels a sense of responsibility to his widowed mother, is the hon. Lady saying that she must not join him here?

Mrs. Gorman: There is no reason why the son cannot support the mother in her country of origin. It may be cruel to a person who has lived all his life in a foreign land, speaking another language, existing in a foreign culture, to root him up and bring him to this country. It would be much more sensible for the mother to remain there, looked after in her own society, even if supported by the resources earned in this country by members of her family.
Bills such as this would not need to be brought to the House from time to time if we rethought the structure of our immigration policy and took into account the legitimate worries of our citizens. I speak not only of our white citizens but of our black and brown ones who are concerned that too many too soon could cause too many problems. We should reconsider our attitude to immigration and base it not on the past obligations to the empire, but strongly on the current wishes and desires of the great majority of our people.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I hesitate to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), and I shall resist any temptation to be controversial. However, I will say that, although the name and the sex have changed, the message remains the same. The hon. Lady's speech could well have come from the lips of her predecessor.
Every time I hear a Government Minister, especially a Cabinet Minister, attempting to talk down a Government Bill—as the Home Secretary did by saying that these are purely technical changes, plugging a bit here and plugging a bit there—I think that the House has a right to feel that the Bill has far deeper meanings than the Minister would have the House believe. I am driven to the conclusion that the Home Secretary, having stood up to the Tory Right on capital punishment, and having resisted the temptations at the Tory conference to go down that path, has given in to the Tory Right on another issue, its

next pet hate—immigration. He has said to them, "You cannot have hanging, lads, but we will keep a few more blacks out of the country for you." That is pandering to the Tory Right at the expense of human feelings and emotions and will lead to distress.
I am tired of the crocodile tears of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said that the Bill was modest, fair and reasonable. I hope that when it becomes an Act the hon. Gentleman will come along to my office and explain to Bangladeshi citizens why they are no longer able to have their wives and families join them in Britain. That is a right that they were guaranteed 16 years ago, but the Government now intend to withdraw it. My Bangladeshi citizens will find it difficult to accept the Bill as modest, fair and reasonable, because it will shatter the prospect of family life that was held out to them under the terms of the 1971 Act.
The Home Secretary, the Government and all Conservative Members are impervious to the distress that successive immigration changes have caused. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I wish that they would come along to my surgery and hear the distraught wife say, "Why me? Why have they refused my husband when the husband of the girl next door has been given permission to join her in this country?" There is no rational reason, other than the whim of the entry certificate officer, why one should have been given a certificate while the other was refused. I wish that Conservative Members could be there when the distraught father comes along and says, "What more evidence do I have to produce to convince them"—meaning the Home Office—"that these are my children?". One cannot offer any rational explanation.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: No, I will not. Conservative Members have been playing ducks and drakes with the time of the House for the past one and a half hours and it is my intention to be relatively brief to enable another of my hon. Friends to participate in the debate.

Mr. Boeteng: Two.

Mr. Marshall: I cannot guarantee that Conservative Members will not waste more time.
The Bill will make the situation even worse. The House has long recognised that section 1(5) of the 1971 Act is racially discriminatory. If the Government had any sense of decency, they would remove the discrimination, not by reducing the existing rights of males, but by extending the rights of females so that the rights of the two sexes would coincide. It is predictable that the Government should continue to be perverse and in the name of equality reduce the existing rights of one sex rather than advance the rights of the other. Consequently, the Government have decided to repeal section 1(5) and to remove the absolute right given to Commonwealth citizens by the 1971 Act.
We should remind ourselves again and again that an absolute guarantee was given in 1971, but now, at the whim of the Government, the House will remove that guarantee. What will these people face instead? They will face two new hurdles. The first is the employment test that is implicit in the no-resort-to-public-funds test, and the second is the accommodation test. A great deal has been said about the accommodation test, but the employment test is equally pernicious, if not more so.
The employment test will apply at the moment of application for the family to come and join the father and husband and everything that has gone before will be ignored. The man may have been in permanent employment up to the day of application, with all that that means in terms of the contribution in taxation and national insurance. All that will be to no avail at the moment of application if he is unemployed and unable to give the guarantee that his family will not resort to public funds. That is grossly unfair and hon. Members should vote against the Second Reading. I wish that we could defeat the Bill on Second Reading, but parliamentary arithmetic dictates otherwise. Despite protestations from the Government Benches, the Bill will do nothing to improve race relations. On the contrary, it is likely to make them worse. It will further diminish and tarnish our international reputation and we should vote against those consequences.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), in his excellent speech, said that he thought that the Bill was a further turn of the screw. Many Conservative Members think that that is what the Bill does. For one category of immigrant, it makes it more difficult for them to enter our country. On the other hand, I disagree with the hon. Member for Leicester. South (Mr. Marshall) who said that it would make race relations more difficult. We have to consider the Bill in relation to all the legislation that the Government have put forward on immigration. There has been a policy of firm control of immigration which basically has been based on fairness. I challenge Labour Members to say that the legislation has led to a deterioration in race relations.
As someone who lived in and represented a constituency in Glasgow, where there was a substantial number of immigrants, and who now represents an area in Southend where there is a similar number, I have gained the impression that race relations have improved. Whereas 20 or 30 years ago immigrants were regarded as a burden and a problem, there is now a much greater realisation that immigrants have made a considerable contribution to society. The aging immigrant community is better behaved. Recorded offences among immigrants are lower and their family unity is remarkably strong in comparison to the rest of the population. We have the second highest divorce rate of any European country, after West Germany. Children of immigrants have shown remarkable scholastic performance.
I accept that there are problems coming from racist minorities, but by and large race relations have improved. There is no doubt that the legislation and the Government's policy of being firm but fair have made a real contribution. I accept that clause 1 is a change of policy and I accept that it is significant because it was laid down almost as a pledge. It is difficult to justify that, simply because of the date of arrival, one group is entitled to bring in a fiancée or a member of their family, while others have to go through a strict employment and income test. I wonder whether it would help race relations if, in areas of massive housing stress, serious unemployment and social problems, we limited immigration. Those various turns of the screw may cause unhappiness and distress, but the basic policy of firmness and fairness has made a considerable contribution to the improvement of race relations. Conservative Members who have supported

those measures would support the Government 100 per cent. in their endeavours to ensure that every citizen has guaranteed full and equal rights.
I think all hon. Members are aware that, whereas we have tight control on new immigration, our Community obligations make it inevitable that we must offer the freedom of settlement, employment and welfare services to about 200 million people who live within the confines of the EEC. I do not wish to argue that issue tonight because that happened some time ago. I believe that in various ways we regret that decision, but that is a wider issue. The Bill places greater restrictions on Commonwealth citizens coming into the country, yet many of those people live only miles away from—in some cases next door to—citizens of foreign countries who are entitled to come, settle, live and work here and to obtain all the advantages of our welfare state. I refer to France's overseas territories.
If one is a citizen of British Guyana, under the legislation one will have great difficulty getting into this country. One has to wait for months to get an interview. One has to apply and prove all sorts of things. One has to show that there are resources in the United Kingdom to support one. However, a person living in French Guyana is regarded as a citizen of a French overseas territory, part of the French Republic. Under the legislation we are tightening control of immigration from a former British colony, yet we are opening a wide door to every citizen of French Guyana, which is only next door. Citizens of Jamaica or other West Indian islands will find it difficult to get into the country under the legislation, but again there are other islands in the West Indies which are part of France's overseas territories — Martinique and Guadeloupe. Are citizens of those islands, which, by some administrative quirk, happen to be regarded as part of France, to have virtually unfettered entry to this country? We are placing tight controls on the Asian sub-continent. But plenty of islands in the Indian ocean and elsewhere are, for the purposes of Community law, part of France. It seems that citizens of places such as Reunion, Mayotte, and St. Pierre—which, of course, is in a quite different part of the world—will be automatically entitled to settle and work in this country, and to be given the advantage of the welfare servicies that it provides.
Is there nothing that we can do about this? Like others, I accept the reality of our membership of the EEC, but it appears that laws that are linked with that membership discriminate against our country as they do against no other country. For example, we have an appalling trade balance in the EEC. A major part of that is because West Germany has a special arrangement whereby goods can flood in from eastern Europe through East Germany under something called the inner German trade agreement. I have asked whether anything can be done about that. The answer is, apparently not.
Here we have another nonsensical administrative nightmare that discriminates against our people, our country and our Commonwealth citizens—people who have been our friends and allies, and who fought for us in the war. I have no objection, in the interest of good race relations, to telling many of my constituents and others that it will be more difficult for them to get over the hurdle, because we must try to persuade them that strong immigration at a time of serious housing stress would make race relations more difficult. But how can I, in all honesty, say that it should be more difficult for them, when citizens of countries just beside them — in the West


Indies, Guyana and elsewhere—have unfettered rights of entry, simply because they are regarded as part of France's overseas territories? How can I tell my West Indian constituents, "Life is more difficult for you; if you were a Frenchman living in Guadeloupe or Martinique, it would be okay—anything goes"? How can I tell a constituent who comes from British Guyana, "We can do nothing for you, but if you were in French Guyana, the doors would be open and all the resources of the state would be available"?
The Government must try to do something. I appreciate the difficulty of getting anything done in the EEC. We have been trying to reform the CAP for decades; yet nothing happens, and nothing will happen. The Government know that as well as I do. We have been trying to do something about the nonsense of the inner German trade agreement. Again, nothing happens and nothing will happen. But here we are dealing with real people, real families, real friends of Britain. We have a duty and an obligation at least to raise in the Council of Ministers the nonsense and unfairness of what we find when we compare ex-British citizens with present French citizens.
I hope that the Government will accept that there is an anomaly. I have great hopes of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Some time ago I raised with him another nonsense which I felt would put British lives in danger—the Common Market's grand plan to allow mutual recognition of firearms certificates. That would mean that, despite all our controls, people from the Common Market could walk into the streets of London, or elsewhere, with a Kalashnikov, or any other gun, so long as they had a firearms certificate from their own country. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend, unlike certain Cabinet Ministers, has taken up the matter. He is fighting it tooth and nail, and I believe that he has a good chance of stopping it, although it is subject to a majority vote.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a good record on these matters. He knows them back to front, because he used to be in the Foreign Office. Here is a little crusade for him. Let me at least ask, if we are to support this law as a law of fairness and objectivity, that my hon. Friend should go to Brussels and say, "We are bringing in tough rules to control immigration, but we want something to be done about the absurd nonsense whereby French Guyana receives wonderful liberties and opportunities that are not available to British Guyana, and people coming from French islands in the West Indies receive benefits that are not available to former British islands in the West Indies."
I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he will take up the matter and, if possible, get something done about it. I hope that we shall hear what he has to say about an obvious and great injustice.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on a most eloquent, moving and passionate maiden speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) pointed out that it was a historic occasion because she was the first black woman ever to speak in the House of Commons. After her performance today, I am sure that the standard of debate in the House will be enhanced.
We listened carefully and with interest to the Home Secretary's speech in order to try to establish the purpose of the Bill. He said that the Bill was needed to reinforce fair and firm control. He referred also to the system being overloaded. However, at the end of the Home Secretary's speech most hon. Members were bemused and were no clearer about the need for the Bill. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) suggested that the Bill does nothing for immigrants, but she added that it gives the impression that something is being done for them.
With one exception, the Bill takes away basic rights and privileges. It is negative and unfair. It is also a wasted opportunity. Furthermore, it is incoherent. The Bill should seek to unite families, improve race relations and enhance basic human rights—for example, by improved rights of appeal.
The Conservative party claims to be the party of the family. In 1979 it published a paper entitled "Family Policy", which referred to putting the family
at the centre of the political debate.
One of the five tasks that the first Thatcher Government set themselves was "to support family life". That rings hollow, as one of the consequences of the Bill will be that many families are kept apart. The repeal of section 1(5) of the 1971 Act will mean the removal of the right of those who settled here before January 1973 to bring in their wives and children. A promise has been broken.
Article 16 of the United Nations declaration of human rights says:
Men and women … have the right to marry and to found a family. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.
The Bill does not protect family life. It attacks it.
The European Court of Human Rights found recently that the application of section 1(5) is sexually discriminating. There are more rights for men than for women to unite with their families. Why have the Government taken away rights from men instead of giving them to women? If the aim of the Government is to improve family life, why should they not level up rather than level down?

Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: I will give way when I have finished making my case.
The effects of the Government's decision are restrictive and seriously detrimental for family life.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has referred to levelling up. Will he explain exactly what he means by that? During the period of the previous Labour Government, immigration rose by 30 per cent. whereas under this Government it has been reduced by about 40 per cent. When the Leader of the Opposition went to India, he said that he would repeal the existing legislation and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Whip calculated when he was a Home Office Minister that that could lead to 10,000 more immigrants. Is that what the Opposition want?

Mr. Randall: The numbers game is not the issue at stake. I have tried to show that through the European Court of Human Rights findings the Government's action has resulted in families being prevented from uniting and that has been the thrust of my point. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was irrelevant to my case.
I believe that there is a serious erosion of human rights in the Bill. For example, it removes the effective rights of appeal in deportation cases. Secondly, the right to attend appeal hearings where a person's claim to British citizenship by descent is challenged. The Opposition are not asking for more people to become eligible for settlement. We are merely asking for people to have a fair hearing.
There is immense scope for improving race relations in this multiracial society in which we all live. The Bill is a wasted opportunity for introducing new measures to improve the working of our society and to remove the many inequalities of opportunity that exist for black and Asian people. Instead, the Bill will be seen by many people to be petty, nasty and irrelevant to their needs. That is no way to enhance race and community relations in our country.
Clause 1 deals with the repeal of section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. As I have already mentioned, promises were made that those who settled here before 1973 had a clear-cut right to bring their wives and children here. Many people who will be affected by the repeal have been here for many years. Many of them have also served their country in times of war — certainly in the Falklands. Many have paid rates and taxes and, often, because their families are overseas, they have not made many claims on the education or health care systems. Indeed, many have made a net financial contribution since coming here. Now they will he ruthlessly penalised by the Bill.
Currently those settled before January 1973 need only to prove relationship in order for the spouse to join them. The Government seem to be moving the goal posts. They are now creating a new set of more difficult criteria which need to be satisfied before settlement can take place. Again, the consequence is that it will be more difficult for families to be united in the United Kingdom.
Will the Minister of State tell us whether it is one of the Government's aims to use those additional criteria to restrict black immigrants from entering this country because of inadequate housing, especially in the south-east and in London? For those settled here before 1973, the new criteria for settlement of families are a "Catch-22" on housing. Councils will often not provide family-type accommodation until all the family members are in the United Kingdom, yet entry clearance will not be granted unless family-type accommodation is already available in the United Kingdom before the family arrives. The Bill will create great problems for many families to whom this and previous Governments have made promises about their rights.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman refers to council housing as if it were the only type of housing available. Does he recognise that the vast majority of people in the Asian community—I speak from the experience of my constituency—want to own their homes and that the vast majority of them do? That is how they provide housing for their families, not by going to the local authority for a council house.

Mr. Randall: Frankly, I do not care whether it is private or public housing. In parts of London, there are thousands of homeless people, so it is not right for any politician to die in a ditch about whether it is private or public housing.

People in bed and breakfast accommodation live in appalling conditions and it is the Government's responsibility to sort it out.
Any claim for housing and other benefits could disqualify a spouse from gaining admission for settlement in the United Kingdom. For example, a man could be made unemployed through no fault of his own a couple of weeks before his wife's arrival. He would fail the maintenance test because he would have to resort to public funds. Families should be together when the man is unemployed, but the Bill would keep families apart because of the recourse to public funds.
The repeal of section 1(5) would extend the primary purpose rule to all spouses coming to the United Kingdom for settlement. That would open the way for the same discriminatory tests for those settled here before 1973. The primary purpose rule is discredited. It is unacceptable to many of the people directly affected by it and to many entry clearance and immigration officers. It is the wrong basis for deciding people's lives and futures.
The repeal of section 1(5) would have a serious effect on the number of homeless people and those living in bed and breakfast accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that there are 1,200 families in bed and breakfast accommodation in Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Hurd: It is not the repeal of section 1(5), but the section itself which has a bad effect on homelessness.

Mr. Randall: I take the Home Secretary's point. The measure would remove people's privileges and rights and, therefore, they would be susceptible to the primary purpose rule. That would be a consequence of the Government's action.
The purpose of the housing investment programme is to provide housing investment to satisfy defined need. It is a disgrace that the Government do not collaborate with councils with chronic housing problems to provide housing to meet needs and to stop wasting massive sums of money to keep hundreds of families in bed and breakfast accommodation. If housing is needed to bring families together it should be provided. There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as this not making available adequate housing to meet people's needs. The Prime Minister's antipathy towards local government is at the root of the homelessness problem in our inner cities and especially in London.
Clause 2 deals with the admission of polygamous wives. The Government have introduced a clause with 10 subsections to deal with a matter which produced only 25 cases last year and 75 cases in the past three years. That seems absurd. With such small numbers, it would clearly be far more appropriate to consider each case on its merits. The Government seem to be trying to create a problem so that they can be seen to have produced a solution. It is a sop to the Tory party conference. To play with people's lives in that way is a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who has vast experience in race relations matters, believes that this was done for political purposes in relation to the general election and I am inclined to accept his judgment.
Clause 3 removes the right of appeal in the United Kingdom from people claiming to be United Kingdom citizens by descent. Since last May, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act has been in operation. Perhaps the


Minister will tell us how many people will be involved. I suspect that the numbers are tiny. The immigration appeals tribunal decided that people claiming to be British citizens should be able to make a claim on entry to this country and have a right of appeal in the United Kingdom if required. It seems that as the Home Office has failed to change the views of the appellate authorities it now wishes to change the law by means of clause 3. The consequence will be that children who could be eligible will be kept out of this country if their claim to be British is challenged and will thus not be present at their appeal hearings. The clause seeks to limit the legal remedies available to people challenged by the Home Office when those remedies need to be strengthened.
Clauses 4 and 5 substantially limit appeals against deportation. Under clause 4, anyone given permission to enter Britain less than seven years before a deportation order is made will no longer be able to present compassionate circumstances to the appeals authority. That effectively removes the right of appeal against deportation. It may create considerable anomalies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, the seven-year period starts from the last time leave to enter was granted, so a person who has been here for more than seven years but has travelled outside the United Kingdom on holiday might not be able to exercise full rights of appeal against deportation. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, as it could have a very serious effect on some people. I should also appreciate the Minister's comments on the effect of clause 4, and perhaps also clause 5, on asylum seekers.
Clause 5 addresses the question of overstaying. Currently, the Home Office has two sets of powers against overstayers. First, it can deport them under the 1971 Act. In those circumstances, the person has a right of appeal. Secondly, deportation can arise through prosecution in the courts, as overstaying is a criminal offence. In the latter case, no effective right of appeal would exist as compassionate circumstances would not be taken into account. The Bill would not give new powers to the Home Office to remove overstayers, but more overstayers would be criminalised and fewer would have the full right of appeal.
The Home Office already has adequate powers to remove overstayers. Those powers ensure that the appellate authorities can review a deportation decision and take into account compassionate circumstances. That safeguard is vital, as some people have been in the United Kingdom for many years and have roots here, for example, asylum seekers. The Government's adoption of this criminal route to deportation could encourage blackmail, for obvious reasons. I should appreciate it if the Minister of State would tell us what measures he will introduce to minimise that threat.
I have listened to the whole debate and I know that most Opposition Members cannot understand why the Bill was introduced. It is a mystery Bill, and a nit-picking Bill for bureaucrats. There are no positive measures to improve the community and race relations. It represents a lost opportunity by this incompetent and insensitive Government. It discriminates against British people. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, Germans, French and nationals of other EC member states can bring to Britain wives, children, parents and

grandparents, but British people do not have that right in their own country. Why should not British people be treated in the same way?
The Bill is about criminalising people. As well as removing fundamental rights of appeal, it contains broken promises from this Tory Government and is full of petty restrictions. In addition, it removes rights of reunion for mums, dads and children. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote against this nasty, vindictive, negative and irrelevant Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I join the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) in at least one thing—paying tribute to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on her maiden speech this afternoon. I congratulate her and hope that we shall hear her speak many more times in the House. She must be proud to be the first black woman to have spoken in the House of Commons. I was glad that she paid tribute to her predecessor, Mr. Ernie Roberts. He had a reputation for being a very good constituency Member and was a decent member of the Labour party.
There were many other things in the hon. Lady's speech, some of which I shall refer to in due course, with which I did not agree. There was one comment which she made at the start of her speech which I found very sad. She told us about her parents who emigrated here from Jamaica in 1950, and she said that ever since then there had been decline. However, in 1950 when her parents came here, there were about 200,000 people in Britain from the New Commonwealth which then included Pakistan. There are now nearly 2·3 million people here from those countries. Does the hon. Lady not regard as some measure of progress the fact that things have changed in this country and that the ethnic minorities, about whom she is rightly concerned, have increased so greatly in number in the mere 30 years of which she spoke?
I shall deal with one specific point in her speech, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, about clause 5 which refers to overstaying. The hon. Lady appeared to be under the impression that we were making overstaying a criminal offence for the first time, but that is not so. The 1971 Act made overstaying a criminal offence, and when the Labour Government were in power in the mid-1970s they did nothing to change that. It is only now, as a result of two court judgments, which we believe have weakened the deterrent effect of this offence, that we think it is right to return to the original position. In passing the 1971 Act Parliament intended that those who offended against the immigration laws should be liable to prosecution through the courts. Illegal entry is a criminal offence and we see no reason why the same deterrent effect, both the prosecution procedure and possible deportation, should not also apply to overstaying.
I regret that the debate has been punctured with cries from Opposition Members, not least the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Lady, that the legislation is either racist or discriminatory. It is a tragedy that whenever the Government propose anything to do with the sensible reinforcement of the controls on immigration, Opposition Members go on to autopilot and, without any thought of the consequences for their constituents and for the Afro-Caribbean or Asian minority communities, start shouting


hostile, frightening words. They should think twice before doing so because such accusations can only bring discredit to those who make them. They should wonder whether the status and acceptance of the ethnic minorities is not harmed by those words. Above all, they should consider whether they should cause this worry among the ethnic minorities—

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Renton: No, I shall finish this point first and then give way — without any attempt to explain to their constituents the technical details of the Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister take on board the fact that we well understand the technical details of this legislation and that it is because we and our constituents understand them that we are worried? This is a racist Bill in intent and effect. If the Minister had any decency he would withdraw it immediately.

Mr. Renton: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. From the comments that hon. Gentlemen have made on overstaying, appeal rights in relation to deportation for overstayers and the abolition of section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, it is clear that they do not understand the Bill and have not tried to explain it to their constituents.
None of our proposals is racist. The Bill seeks better race relations. Our proposals — this point was made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) in a powerful speech — bear equally outside the European Community countries on all who wish to enter the United Kingdom, either as visitors or for settlement, no matter whether they come from the Caribbean, the United States or the Indian sub-continent.
Our proposed changes are clearly and evidently non-racist. The abolition of section 1(5) of the 1971 Act has rightly taken up a great deal of time. After the Bill has been passed, every British citizen and all Commonwealth citizens settled here who wish to bring in a wife or dependent children must ensure that those dependants go through the same tests regarding marriage or accommodation and maintainence without recourse to public funds. If anyone is to be affected by this change, it is fair to say, as Ian Macdonald did in his article in The Guardian last Friday, that those most affected are likely to be white British citizens who were born here or settled here before 1 January 1973. They will now have to go through the tests as well.
This afternoon my right hon. Friend announced the limitation of visas to six months. Among the greatest number of applicants for initial visas of more than six months extending to 12 months are Australians and Americans. However, I hear no voice raised in the House today saying that they are being discriminated against.
The fact that the changes we are proposing in the immigration rules are of universal application ensures that they cannot fairly or justly be described as racist. It is possible to see racism in the Bill only if one defiantly refuses to understand the facts behind it. If we were to say that Britons or Bangladeshis who had been here from before 1 January 1973 were to continue to benefit from section 1(5) and that no other Commonwealth country

immigrants would benefit, that would be racist. However, we are not suggesting any such exclusions or omissions. Those who continue to say that the Bill is racist remind me of people with hearing aids who ask a question and then switch off the aid before they can hear the answer.
Labour Members, beginning with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, have had a problem dealing with the Bill because they do not know whether to regard it as too big or too small a Bill. That came over in the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is a modest Bill.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Hear, hear.

Mr. Renton: I am grateful for the support.
The Bill deals with a number of anomalies and fills loopholes that have emerged in recent years. We believe in fairness between immigrants and that, if we see loopholes in immigration controls, we should fill them. That is the reason behind the Bill.
I was surprised by the concern of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about the clause that makes it impossible for a second polygamous wife to enter this country for settlement purposes. I believe that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is in favour of women's rights, but he also appears to be in favour of polygamy. I find that an odd attitude—[Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend has made plain, we are talking about 25 households a year. A few years ago the Select Committee recommended that we should stop allowing second or third polygamous wives to enter the country. We have accepted that recommendation and are getting on with it. That is the long and short of the matter.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Renton: I will give way to the hon. Lady with pleasure, but I do not believe that she was present during the debate.

Ms. Ruddock: I would like to take the Minister up on one point. I wonder how he sees that women's rights would be served by forcibly excluding a woman, even if she is a second or third wife, from joining her husband when she is legally contracted to be in that relationship.

Mr. Renton: As I have already said, the House of Commons Select Committee recommended—

Mr. Corbyn: Answer the question.

Mr. Renton: I will answer the question. The Committee recommended that, as the entry of polygamous wives into Britain was not an acceptable custom, it should not be continued. That was the recommendation of the Committee. I see no objection to it and we are going ahead with putting it into law.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way; I want to move to the abolition of section 1(5).
Fourteen years have passed since this section came into effect. Those who were adult males at the time have therefore had 14 years in which to bring in their wives and dependants. The point that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not pick up is that those who are receiving


the benefit of section 1(5) are not those who were adult males at the time of the 1971 Act but the young children who had then just been born.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Renton: I want to finish this point, so the hon. Member is wasting valuable debating time.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is fairly clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Renton: Those who are now benefiting from section 1(5) are the children of adult males who were born just before the Act came into force. This section discriminates against women, children and the siblings of those children, and increasingly does not protect those whom it was intended to protect.
When the 1971 Act was passed there was doubt among the minority communities about their future in this country. However, I am glad to say that the current position is different. It is clear that section 1(5) was inserted into the 1971 Act to offer reassurance on this point. Our commitment to racial harmony and to the rights of those who have legitimately settled here to remain in this country and make their future here has been made clear on many occasions. There is no longer a need for section 1(5), particularly when its operation is unfair in effect and produces results that no sensible person could claim to be right. It is anomalous and discriminatory and we shall abolish it to ensure that all who come here as spouses and children will have to undergo the same test.

Mr. Hanley: Before my hon. Friend departs from clause 1, he might like to know that in an intervention in my speech the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the Conservative Government introduced the primary purpose rule. I have researched this matter in the Library and discovered that on 22 March 1977 the Labour Government introduced the primary purpose rule when they changed the immigration rules. Is my hon. Friend aware of that fact?

Mr. Renton: Yes, I am; and it is right and proper that my hon. Friend should remind the House of it in view of the cant that we have heard from Labour Members. The first primary purpose rule was introduced in 1977 by a Labour Government to deal specifically with marriages of convenience.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what it said and compare it with the present one?

Mr. Renton: I have it here, by mere coincidence. It was the first limited introduction of a primary purpose rule that was restricted to marriages of convenience. If the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten its contents I shall send them to him in a letter tomorrow.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: No. I want to get on. I shall send the details to the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both Front-Bench spokesmen cannot be on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Renton: Many Opposition Members have said that the appeal rights under clause 4 will be truncated. This is

another instance of the Opposition's dismal lack of understanding about the Bill. Clause 4 does not in any way truncate or diminish appeal rights by a court. All that it does is limit the right of appeal against administrative deportation. The right of appeal to a higher court following prosecution and recommendation for deportation will not be affected. The hon. Members for Brent, South, for Kingston upon Hull, West and for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) might have taken that on board before making their speeches.
I shall explain, because the matter is important and I realise how strongly the House feels about appeal rights. In many of the cases affected by clause 4, the appellant will already have had an opportunity to argue the compassionate circumstances of his case before an adjudicator when exercising his right of appeal against refusal of an extension to stay. It has become clear that in many cases people appealing against a decision to deport them do so with the main aim of using the appeal system to extend their stay here. It is wholly reasonable in our opinion that such a person should have the restricted right of appeal which will in future be available, given that the Secretary of State takes all the compassionate factors of each case into account before deciding to make a deportation order. Those are the facts and hon. Members should have considered them more closely before making their remarks.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for his wise and sensible speech. For a long time he was a member of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I thank him for his tribute to the immigration officers and to the Home Office and Foreign Office. He is right that when the Labour party was in office it did nothing to change the Immigration Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes asked me about the tape recording of interviews in the Indian sub-continent. The matter has been looked into carefully. I looked into it myself in 1985 when I was in the Indian sub-continent. Based on the need for interpreters in the United Kingdom and overseas to listen to the tapes, the cost involved and a number of other factors, we decided that it was not practical to tape-record interviews. The Sub-Committee considered that carefully.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) for his speech. He asked about registration. I was distressed to hear him say that the Labour party had been stirring up fears about what is to happen on 31 December when the basic right to register for citizenship will end. Such action is to be deplored. The ending of the right has been known for six years. Plenty of forms are available.

Mr. Corbyn: Where?

Mr. Renton: We have sent forms to citizens' advice bureaux throughout the country and to community relations councils. If anyone is in any doubt, they have only to get in touch with Lunar house in Croydon.
My hon. Friend asked me about DNA testing, which could be an important development—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members are interested in immigration practice, they should listen to what I am about to say on DNA testing, because it concerns some of them closely. The last few test results in the 40-case field trial are expected soon. A report will be prepared, a copy of which will be placed in the Library. We have yet to decide the


Government's policy on public funding of DNA testing. We shall decide it in view of the results of the trials. Meanwhile, commercial testing is available and I expect it to be used increasingly.
I listened with care and interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), because I recognise the great problem with the number of Bangladeshis in his constituency. He said that the housing crisis in his constituency is more serious than anywhere in Europe. I must ask him: why make it worse by extending the protection of section 1(5) to husbands as well as to wives? It must be reasonable, given the problem in Tower Hamlets, Camden and similar boroughs with immigrants who are immediately rendered homeless, that those who bring spouses and children to Britain should show that they can maintain them without recourse to public funds. That must be common sense.

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Renton: I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I have very little time left.

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way, and time is getting short.

Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a firm tradition in the House that if a Minister alludes to an Opposition Member, he should allow an intervention in his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Renton: In the 1970s, the Conservative and Labour parties understood — this did not change when the Labour Government were in office between 1974 and 1979 — the need to restrict the number of people who emigrated to Britain. There was a tacit understanding that the numbers could be only as many as could be absorbed by our housing, hospitals and community services, and that immigration should not damage the standards of our existing communities, which were increasingly multiracial and of all ethnic origins.
That consensus went by the board at the Labour party conferences in 1981 and 1982, when the debates on nationality and immigration led to the adoption of the nationality and immigration section of Labour's Programme '82. It states:
The repeal of the 1971 Immigration Act and the 1981 British Nationality Act will be among the highest priorities for the next Labour government.
That remains official Labour policy. The Labour leadership has swept it under the carpet in the hope that it will not be noticed, but today we heard nothing of what the new Labour Opposition would put in its place.
In India, the Leader of the Opposition repeated that Labour would repeal the 1971 and 1981 Acts. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tried to play that down by saying that Labour's policy would lead to an increase of only a thousand immigrants a year—10,000 is a more likely figure. So be it. If that is Labour's policy, let Opposition Members say so clearly and openly, and stop attacking these minor reforms as racist while giving no hint of what they would put in their place. Humbug and hypocrite are the names that properly apply to those who speak on these matters from the Labour Front Bench. They may try to fool the ethnic minority by saying that they are promising much, or the

majority of the country by saying that they are promising little, but they will not fool the House of Commons. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 221.

Division No. 70]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Den


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkinson, David
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, George


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan 

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) 

Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hill, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hind, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Cran, James
Hordem, Sir Peter


Curry, David
Howard, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
 
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)






Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Neubert, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Jack, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Janman, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Robin


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Steen, Anthony


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Knox, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Latham, Michael
Sumberg, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Summerson, Hugo


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lord, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Thorne, Neil


McCrindle, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Macfarlane, Neil
Thurnham, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maclean, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Trippier, David


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Trotter, Neville


Madel, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Major, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Malins, Humfrey
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mans, Keith
Walden, George


Maples, John
Waller, Gary


Marland, Paul
Ward, John


Marlow, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Warren, Kenneth


Mates, Michael
Watts, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Wells, Bowen


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Mellor, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Miller, Hal
Wilshire, David


Mills, Iain
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Miscampbell, Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Yeo, Tim


Moate, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Monro, Sir Hector
Younger, Rt Hon George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus



Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Mudd, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cartwright, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Bob





Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
John, Brynmor


Cohen, Harry
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cousins, Jim
Lambie, David


Cox, Tom
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, J.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alastair
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, James
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Faulds, Andrew
Maxton, John


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliott


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Galbraith, Samuel
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Pendry, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Reid, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Henderson, Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooker, Jeff


Holland, Stuart
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)






Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Anthony


Thomas, Dafydd Elis
Wray, James


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Wall, Pat
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay


Wallace, James



Walley, Ms Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Immigration Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I would not normally seek to speak to the money resolution, but the House ought to be aware that during the previous six hours of debate 21 hon. Members addressed the House. Conservative Members spoke for a total of 210 minutes, and Opposition Members for a mere 137 minutes. We see the reason for that in the Division figures. Few Government Members turned out to support the Bill in the Division Lobby.
The Government had problems all afternoon, and we had the unseemly sight of the Government Chief Whip running around like a conscription agent dragging Tory MPs out of the Tea Room to address the House on a subject about which they know nothing and on briefs that were just thrust into their hands. They mouthed a lot of parrot-like phrases, such as the Tory party does, suggesting that there is always a need to tighten yet further the screw on immigration.
The Bill is a nasty attempt to make life even more difficult for the Bangladeshi and other communities than it was under the 1971 legislation, which I regret was not repealed by a previous Labour Government, although I very much hope that it will be repealed by a future Labour Government. Some hon. Members wish to oppose the money resolution because we believe that the Bill will cause untold difficulties for many people in our constituencies, or, in my own case, for the National Union of Public Employees, by which I am sponsored. Those hon. Members and I daily go through the experience of our constituents seeking entry for spouses, largely from the sub-continent, who, under the terms of the 1971 Act, have every right to enter the country. However, under the proposals in the Bill that right to come here will be further reduced.
Tonight we had the most disgraceful statement in the closing remarks of the Under-Secretary of State, who said that since 1971 conditions had changed, so that many of those who were eligible to come here as dependent relatives no longer meet those conditions. The reason is quite simply that in many cases bureaucratic delays, deliberately incurred under successive Home Secretaries, went on for so long that many of those children who had a right to come here have now passed the age where they can legally enter the country. The Home Secretary knows that what I am saying is absolutely correct. He also knows that the Bill builds on a whole series of attitudes of the immigration service and the Home Office which, frankly, border on the racist and the disgraceful.
I spend numerous weekends in endless telephone calls about people — [Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Members find the matter so amusing. If they had to go through the indignity that others do on arriving in the country, they would not behave as they do. A white person who arrives at Heathrow airport has little

likelihood of being detained for any length of time by immigration officers, yet the arrival of Bangladeshis on a flight from Dhaka is a signal for every immigration officer to rush to the scene and detain people for as long as possible. That happens every time a flight arrives from Dhaka, India or any other non-white Commonwealth country.
My experience is that, in the majority of cases, statistics are drawn up that seek to show that Commonwealth people from non-white countries are a greater problem than those who come from the old white Commonwealth. Those statistics are entirely false and bogus, because they are a self-fulfilling prophecy. If immigration officers detain a group of immigrants for long enough, then claim that the were forced to detain them because they believed them to be a problem, and then announce that they are a problem, inevitably the statistics will show that to be so. The previous legislation was based on that, and the Bill is also designed to do that.
I am concerned about the expenditure of public money under the Bill, and also about the many defects that there are in the measure. For example, there is the lack of a right of appeal. It is serious and ominous that those who arrive in the country as bona fide, legitimate visitors are told by immigration officers that they must leave immediately. They have no right of appeal against that unless they are from a non-visa country and a Member of Parliament can be contacted and is able to prevent their being removed.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On several occasions during the Second Reading debate, you, and previous occupants of the Chair, reminded the House that hon. Members have the right to be heard. I realise that the Government have suffered a severe embarrassment by failing to secure more than a very narrow majority for the Second Reading of this squalid and shoddy Bill. Nevertheless, will you ensure that, in the debate on the money resolution, all hon. Members are heard, as they were in the Second Reading debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will carry on their conversations elsewhere.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was discussing the lack of a right of appeal. The Bill is fundamentally flawed, in that not only does it refuse to face the consequences of previous House of Commons Committee decisions that there should be a right of appeal—and recommendations from many reputable outside bodies—but goes further by specifically removing the right of appeal in cases in which immigration officers have made entirely unjust decisions.
Immigration law in this country goes fundamentally against the principles on which British law operates under which a person should be assumed to be innocent until proved guilty. People arriving at airports, especially those arriving from the Indian sub-continent, are far more often than not assumed to be guilty of attempting to enter the country illegally, until they can prove themselves legally entitled to come here.
In his winding-up speech the Under-Secretary spoke of the—

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to follow the Order Paper,


but the hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to have nothing to do with the money resolution. Will he keep to the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said nothing that is out of order. The money resolution on the Bill allows a fairly wide, though short, debate.

Mr. Corbyn: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that Conservative Members should try to curtail debate on such a serious infringement of human rights.
When the Under-Secretary wound up the Second Reading debate he mentioned the entry clearance queues at many sub-continent posts, the longest being at Dhaka. The others are considerably shorter. The Under-Secretary should remember that the Commission for Racial Equality's report on the operation of the immigration service was able to prove conclusively that successive British Governments had succeeded in deliberately keeping that queue at enormous length by understaffing posts in the sub-continent.
Along with many other hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, I have had the welcome opportunity of visiting India and Bangladesh, and going to the villages in Bangladesh which dependent relatives are trying to leave. I was also able to discuss with immigration officers at the high commission posts how they go about their business, and how they decide who should be allowed to join relatives on whom they are dependent.
Two things occurred to me during my visit. The first was the sheer misery that many of my constituents and others undergo in being separated for year after year from their families by bureaucratic delays, and the unpleasantness that that must involve. The other was the misery of life for many families who exist in poverty in small villages in northern Bangladesh and who are are expected to travel a considerable distance, and at great expense, to Dhaka to be interviewed under some incredibly complicated procedure that has little relevance to the communities of the people with whom we are dealing.
For example, the Home Office is obsessed with the need to establish true family relationships. It asks the high commission staff to request birth and marriage certificates, and proof of residence and land ownership. Such proof does not necessarily exist in villages in Bangladesh or in many other parts of the world. The purpose is to seek to prove that one child out of three or four children in a family is not the legitimate child of the parents who have made an application to visit this country. The Government ignore the fact that even if one of the children is not necessarily the child of both parents, but is the child of a previous marriage of one of the partners, that child is still part of the family unit. The spirit of the European Court's decision is that family unity should be maintained and preserved by the European legislation, but the Bill goes very much in the opposite direction.
Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament I have been dealing with one family that will be adversely affected by clause 1. I refer to Mr. Hardeep Singh, who many years ago came to this country from the Indian sub-continent. For 15 years he has been arguing that his wife and children should he allowed to join him. We can imagine what misery life has been for the wife of Mr. Hardeep Singh. She has been unable to join her husband here because of

endless, petty wrangling about their children. The result is that three of the children are now over 18 and therefore are not allowed to come here under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. That is what has happened under the Tory party, which talks such sanctimonious nonsense about the unity of family life. It has deliberately allowed the Hardeep Singh family to be separated for 15 years, with the result that the children hardly know their father. All they know about him is that he sends endless letters from England saying that he is having talks with lawyers about the possibility of their being allowed to enter this country.
In this debate on the money resolution I hope that the Minister will reply to some of the points on which he was too frightened to give way when he wound up the Second Reading debate. He made much of the fact that the registration forms that have to be completed under the British Nationality Act 1981 are widely available. If they are widely available, I should be grateful if he would get into his ministerial car after this debate and come to Islington with a supply of forms, because we are short of them. When he leaves Islington, I suggest that he should go on to Leicester, Hackney and every other place that needs the forms. When I wrote to the Minister protesting about the shortage of forms, a month later he sent me six. We are obliged to him for the six forms, but we need considerably more than that.
We need also a ministerial decision, late though it may be, to reduce or to remove the exorbitant £60 charge for registration, particularly for those on supplementary or unemployment benefit. The way in which that legislation is operating is disgraceful.
In the last four years I have addressed the House on the problems that refugees and asylum seekers face when they seek political asylum here under the terms of the 1951 United Nations Geneva convention. The Minister has often parroted the Home Secretary to a quite disgraceful extent. He has said that this country cannot cope with more refugees. He has told us that we are overburdened with refugees and that this country cannot bear the responsibility of every dispute that happens in the world. No country can bear the responsibility of what happens in every other country of the world. However, this country willingly signed the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention and the Home Secretary gets up and proudly says that we abide by it. Therefore he should bear in mind the figures produced by the Swedish immigration service about the number of asylum applicants in Europe between 1984 and 1986. The total for that period in Sweden was 41,300; in West Germany it was 208,000; in the Netherlands it was 14,200; and in Britain it was 13,300. The figure for Britain is one of the smallest. If we compare asylum applications per million inhabitants of each country, we find that for Sweden the figure is 1,598, for West Germany it is 1,117, in the Netherlands it is 330 and in Britain it is 80. The figure for Britain is by far the lowest for any European country.
If we consider figures for the proportion of population to refugees, we find that the most extreme example is Jordan, where one in four of the population are refugees. In Sweden, one in 195 are refugees and in Britain the figure is one in 400. Similar comparisons can be made on a European basis which will show that this country is doing the least for refugees and asylum seekers, yet we have had


the most disgraceful examples of the way in which the Government operate in connection with the asylum seekers.
The Earl William was taken out of service only after a terrifying night of hurricanes, during which legal asylum seekers were tossed around until the ship finally ran aground on a sandbank, and they were taken off the ship 24 hours later. It was only by a stroke of luck that there was not serious injury or death among those on board. I regret to say that that ship was taken out of service, not as a result of representations from me or my hon. Friends, but as a result of the hurricane. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would give us an undertaking that there will be no repetition of the use of the ship — [Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Members find the hurricane funny. I was referring to the way in which people were locked up in dangerous conditions on board that ship. I realise that it is far too late in the evening to ask Conservative Members to take anything seriously, so perhaps they had better shut up and listen instead.
Recently I drew attention to one case of asylum seekers who had arrived in this country and the way in which they were treated. Mr. Abdul Behvand and his wife Parivash Moosavi are an Iranian couple. Mr. Behvand is an opponent of Ayatollah Khomeini's regime and an opponent of the Islamic republic. He has been active in trade unions—[Interruption.] He was an active member of trade unions in Iran. After several of his — [Interruption.] I am delighted that Conservative Members find the prospect of trade unionists being executed in Iran so amusing. Conservative Members are producing a disgraceful performance after a disgraceful showing of ignorance and an uncaring attitude in the debate on Second Reading earlier.
When the Iranian family concerned were able to escape from Iran, they went first to India and from there to Sweden, where they sought political asylum. Their application for asylum in Sweden was refused—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I take no pride in that. It was disgraceful that they were refused asylum in Sweden. They were then escorted from Sweden to London by two immigration officials, to join an Iran Air flight to return them to Tehran. They were absolutely terrified at the prospect of what would happen to them, their three children and Mrs. Moosavi, who was seven months pregnant at the time. Fortunately, in the transit lounge at Heathrow airport they met an Iranian man who was able to put them in touch with agencies in this country and myself and we were able to stop them from being removed from this country. Their case was then considered. Five weeks later, unusually, they were told to report to Heathrow airport on a Saturday morning for an interview on the question of their right or otherwise to remain in this country. There was no such interview. It was a piece of double dealing and duplicity of the worst order. They were told that they were to be put on a plane that evening to return to Sweden, which had already tried to send them back to Iran.
I made representations the same day in an attempt to prevent their removal from this country, but those representations were unsuccessful and I was given a totally misleading interpretation of what they had said to a Farsi interpreter that day. I had them interviewed by an interpreter whom I knew and trusted and was given a quite different version of what they and the immigration service

wanted. I communicated that information to the immigration service at 4.30 pm. The plane was due to take off at 7 pm. The immigration service refused to allow them to remain in this country for at least another two days so that I could contact the Minister and discuss the case with him. As soon as I put the phone down after speaking to the immigration officer, and before I could even ring a solicitor, the family was bundled on to a plane two hours before it was due to take off.
At that point, out of sheer panic, Mrs. Moosavi slashed her wrist. The Scandinavian airline crew, who regarded all this with some concern, said that they were not prepared to take off with the family on board, so the family were taken off the plane and given permission to remain in this country for a further four days during which representations could be made. Legal action has now been taken against the Home Office Office so that the case for political asylum can be properly considered.
I take no pleasure in telling the House that harrowing story, but if the House ignores the plight of legitimate asylum seekers fleeing the horrors of the Islamic republic in Iran, passes legislation of this kind and supports the Government's attitude, terrible disasters of that kind will happen to other people from equally oppressive regimes.
I ask the House seriously to consider the plight of political asylum seekers. I believe that 35 Members of the House are direct descendants, if not actually the children, of people who have sought political asylum in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said, they may be descendants of Jewish people who fled the pogroms in Russia in 1905 or the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s, people who fled from Spain at the end of the civil war or people who fled the horrors of Fascist or authoritarian regimes elsewhere in the world. I ask the House to consider seriously the whole question of refugees.
I spend a great deal of time dealing with problems of immigration and of asylum seekers and all that goes with that, because my constituency is one to which people come from many parts of the world. Forty-one different languages are spoken in my constituency and we take pride in that. In a moving speech my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington spoke of the pride with which many Caribbean, Asian and other people came to work and to make a contribution to this country and were told that citizenship would be theirs. Some 25 years of oppressive and frankly racist immigration and refugee legislation has forced those people into the most appalling circumstances. People in my constituency and elsewhere who are technically illegal immigrants are afraid to go to the doctor or the hospital in case their names are given to the Home Office, and frightened to work openly or to join a trade union in case the employer phones the Home Office.
In a civilised, democratic society it is not acceptable for people to have to lead a twilight existence on the fringes of society because they could be shopped to Big Brother at the Home Office at any time. The Bill will criminalise such people, but they are not criminals. They are bringing up their families in the best way that they know and making the best contribution that they can, but all that the House can offer them is the smug self-satisfaction of racist headlines in The Sun whenever we raise the problems caused by immigration laws.
We shall oppose the Bill in Committee because this is an uncivilised piece of legislation which will further drive


decent, hard-working, respectable people into the ghetto of being technically illegal immigrants. The Bill will prevent legitimate visitors from visiting this country. It will continue the misery and horror of family separation for black people from Africa and the Caribbean and for Asians, but not for white people, who are protected by the 1971 Act—the most racist piece of legislation on which all the rest has been constructed.
I look forward to a future Parliament which will repeal the 1971 Act and this Bill, and which will put an end to the racism implicit in our immigration legislation.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I did not intend to speak in the debate or on the money resolution, but I listened to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I do not believe that it does immigration or our immigrants any good to overstate their case and to speak as he spoke. Therefore, I enter the debate to make three short, sharp points.
First, I had no hesitation in voting against the Bill because some clauses are unacceptable, particularly those on deportation without the right of appeal.
Secondly, I, too, deal with dozens of immigration cases and the main problem—this is relevant to the clause on homelessness—is the long delay in determining cases—I do not mean in approving cases; I mean in reaching a decision. I constantly have people at my surgery saying, "It is promised that somebody from the Home Office will come and interview us, but nobody has come." We are even receiving letters from the Home Office saying that there is a long waiting list, it has all the papers from abroad and it knows that it must hold an interview, but the process is taking a long time and it cannot promise when the case will be dealt with. I hope that as a consequence of the Bill there may be some money in the system to speed up the procedure.
Thirdly, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I wish to place on the record my sincere appreciation of the way in which the Minister and his staff have dealt with the cases that I have referred to him since the general election. He has not approved them all, but at least I believe that they have been dealt with fairly. They have certainly been dealt with courteously and I appreciate the way in which the Minister does his job.

Mr. Pat Wall: A vote for money for this Bill is entirely unnecessary.
Apart from the emergency debate on the arrival of a planeload of Tamil refugees fleeing from violence in Sri Lanka, it is over a year since the House debated immigration. At the end of October 1986 the House debated a proposal to introduce visas for people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria. The debate took place in an appallingly emotive climate. The announcement of the introduction of the visitors' visa system led, not unnaturally, to an increase in the number of Asians and Africans arriving at our major airports, rightly fearful that the visa system would prevent them from visiting friends and family. That influx, of overwhelmingly short-term visitors, was used by the gutter press deliberately to inflame racial tension. Far from being visitors, they were made out to be a massive wave of permanent immigrants. They were victims of long delays, appalling overcrowding, rudeness and, on not a few

occasions, open racism. They were made out to be the perpetrators of the chaotic scenes which shamed the country and its claim to be a civilised society.
At least this debate is taking place at a time of relative calm, when unemployment figures, scandalously high as they remain and doctored as they certainly have been., are in a period of slight decline.
The fact that the climate is in a better state than it was a year ago and during other major debates on immigration poses direct questions. Why should we vote money for a Bill which is based, according to the philosophy outlined in the Minister of State's reply on Second Reading, on the question of the number of immigrants in this country, when the number is falling? Why should we vote money for the Bill when guarantees that were given to Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom by 1973 with regard to the settlement of their wives and children are now 14 years old and the numbers so entitled must be declining sharply.
The Government claim that unemployment is falling and that our economy is better placed to face the future than almost any other economy in the world. If all that is true, why is the Bill necessary? Why is it necessary to take petty and vindictive steps against, according to the Government, a small number of people? The Bill arises not from any real change in circumstances with regard to immigration or from any extra economic pressures within British society or from any particular change in circumstances in the rest of the world. I can assume that it arises from the prejudices of the Home Office or from promises given to Tory conferences. The removal of section 1(5) of the 1971 Act is an attack upon the Bangladeshi community as the last numerically large group of immigrants to come to this country. Does it include the 9,000 people going through the system now. What will be their status?
With my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) I share one of the largest Bengali communities in our country. They suffer some of the worst conditions of any members of our society. They are made homeless in Tower Hamlets. They have been subject to terrible racial attacks in the Brick lane area. In Bradford a report recently produced shows that the Bengali citizens suffer some of the worst housing conditions of any section of the population. Some 75 per cent. of wives and 93 per cent. of children are covered by the provisions of the 1971 Act. Now, more people will suffer the arbitrary measures of primary purpose and the adequate means test.
The issue of polygamous marriages faces, perhaps alone now, the Bengali community. During the few short months in which I have been a Member of Parliament I have not had to deal with a case in which somebody has tried to bring in a second or third wife. However, I have experienced objections and obstructions from the Home Office against people attempting to bring one wife here because they made an appeal, perhaps five, 10 or more years ago, for another wife to be brought to this country.
I support my right hon. and hon. Friends in their opposition to the removal of the right to appeal. The Government call people involved in that issue "over-stayers". Some of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, may be seeking refugee status. The Home Office is putting a great deal of pressure on such people, despite the fact that Pakistan remains a dictatorship, and despite the obstruction to political parties in Pakistan, the fact that no general


election has been called and that local elections have been interfered with. The Home Office is putting pressure on the people fleeing from that regime and coming to this country. Indeed, I have been involved in a case this week in which a political refugee from Pakistan was summoned to the Home Office. Such people, who had been given political refugee status in this country, are now told that it is all fairly normal and that they should go back. That pressure is beginning to build. If we allowed the Home Office to make decisions about appeals what would happen to the 55 Tamils whom I spoke about earlier? The courts found that 54 of them had the right to stay here, but the Minister said that none of them had such a right. One out of 55 is not a good record and if the people who wish to appeal will have to rely on this process it does not bode well for the future.
The Government refer to these people as overstayers. Some of us remember the British overstaying on the Indian sub-continent for 200 years. They did not require visas, and some of us remember that the primary purpose of that overstaying was to hold down the Indian sub-continent by force, to divide and rule and to exploit the natural resources and people of that country. That has also been the philosophy of Tory Governments towards the working-class people of Britain.
The Bill could have contained sensible proposals. It could have abolished primary purpose. I am sure that even in the immigration service—especially out in the substations—nobody believes in this arbitrary, Catch-22 system.
The Bill could have changed the support and accommodation rules. I do not know whether hon. Members will agree, but I seem to be permanently carrying letters from banks, building society statements and letters from employers saying so and so works for so much money. I do not know how many hours is spent on this nonsense, but it must be a drain on the economy. We are dealing with a money resolution and it seems that that is a waste of money.
I shall recall two simple cases that I have been dealing with recently, not by far the worst. The first relates to two brothers who live in adjacent houses. They are both quite comfortable, with nice houses and good jobs and they want to bring their parents, who are aged over 70, to this country. They have been told that they cannot do so because they are in receipt of pensions in Pakistan amounting to the magnificent sum of £700. Those elderly people cannot have children; they will not break up and remarry; they will not be a burden on the economy. Why has entry been refused?
In the spring I applied on behalf of an old man of nearly 90 who is blind and crippled with arthritis for a multi-entry visa. His son asked that it be done quickly so that the old man could visit in the summer because he could not stand the winter weather in Britain. He has no intention of staying here permanently; he has been here on 20 occasions in the past and he comes only for short visits. That 90-year-old man was told that he would have to travel 300 miles to be interviewed. How will he do that? That is the degrading treatment that these applicants are receiving. Finally, because he could not be dealt with through the immigration office in Islamabad, on the same basis that he would be looked after by the airlines, I managed to obtain the concession of a multi-entry visa.

However, I applied on his behalf in the spring; the visa arrived in the autumn, by which time he could not make the visit because the weather was bad.
That sort of treatment, coupled with the visas for five nations arrangements and this Bill create a climate in which Asian people in my constituency feel that they are being treated like second-class citizens.
My predecessor as the hon. Member for Bradford, North said in a debate on the visas for the five countries that only 1 per cent. have been refused in India and only 2 per cent. in Pakistan. He said that, overall, less than 5 per cent. of people would be refused entry, yet my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West told us tonight that the figure is likely to be 20,000. My predecessor said that 95 per cent. of applicants would be dealt with in 48 hours. In Bradford visitors, especially if they are male, of marriageable age and not already married, have no chance of getting a visa to come here for a wedding within two months, let alone 48 hours.
Different rules apply to the people of Asian origin in my constituency. Nine million Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders have patrial rights which are denied to Africans, West Indians, Asians and other black citizens of the Commonwealth. In addition, 220 million Common Market citizens have rights denied to British citizens. Residents of the USA and South Africa can come here without visas, but people from the New Commonwealth have to get visas.
Added to that is the reality of economic hardship. In July 1986 only 30 per cent. of Bradford's school leavers had jobs. The figure for Asian children was less than 10 per cent. Asian and black workers suffer double the general unemployment level. They also suffer the problems caused by the tightening of the screw, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said.
I should like to have talked about the history of the people brought here, of the numbers and the fact that half a million more have emigrated than have entered. The real problem of immigrants is the colour of their skin; it is not a question of numbers.
The Government claim that the economic position has improved, but in Bradford large-scale unemployment still exists. Pay is the lowest in Britain, and it is even lower for Asian workers. In Bradford 30 per cent. of schools were built before 1906 and they are still in use. In our city there are massive deficiencies in house improvements and renovation. It is one of the worst-treated cities in terms of urban aid and housing grants.
I oppose the Bill because it adds to the indignities and pressures on the 15 per cent. Asian community in my constituency. It is yet another move to divide the people. Far from being on the verge of economic upsurge, which would have made the Bill unnecessary, we are on the verge of a further recession which will make racism an even bigger weapon in the hands of the Conservatives. They have already used Mr. Honeyford and halal meat to distress the Asian and Jewish communities.
I stand for the unity of all working people against unemployment, poverty, bad housing and bad schools. In that struggle and the search for unity, we can have no truck with any form of racialism, so I ask the House not to vote money for this mean and squalid Bill.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Secretary of State spoke of the need to eliminate every pointless bit of


paper that we could get rid of, in order to minimise delay for others. It is good to see at this late hour so many Conservatives on the Government Benches, because they were not there this afternoon. They were not here earlier this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "We were here. Where was the hon. Gentleman?"] They are more enthusiastic about the money than the measure. That must he a great comfort to the Minister.
We were told that we must get rid of every pointless bit of paper. Having heard the arguments for the Bill ad nauseum, having heard the contributions from the Conservative Benches, having seen the opening of the Pandora's Box that the Bill represents, having heard the racism that Conservatives express every time the topic is discussed, having seen the divisive nature of the Bill between black and white, this Bill is the pointless bit of paper that we should be getting rid of.

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business)

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.

IMMIGRATION BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the charging of fees for applications under the Immigration Act 1971 for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and for the grant of such leave; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Orders of the Day — Food Protection

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the House that, in accordance with the order of the House on 12 November, the Chair must put the Question on each of the motions relating to public health not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon.

11 pm

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assume that all three motions will be taken together. May I ask for some clarification on the papers in relation to item No. 7 on the Order Paper, which is Statutory Instrument No. 1894 relating to Wales? The papers that are available from the Vote Office are completely incomprehensible. The version that has been printed has missed out entire sections of the order. I have been back to the Vote Office to check whether I received a faulty copy, but it appears that all the papers that are available contain the same error. They start at page 1 and then miss everything from sections 1 to 5 inclusive, apart from the latter parts of section 5, and then go on to section 6. The order as it stands is utterly meaningless, and I should be grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I regret this very much. It has only just this moment been brought to my attention. I do not know whether the Minister can help us on these papers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I beg to move,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No.Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1837), dated 21st October 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, he approved.
I suggest that, with this, it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No.4) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1888), dated 3rd November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 5) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1894), dated 5th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
These are the latest in a series of orders controlling the movement and slaughter of sheep in parts of north Wales and Scotland since the Chernobyl incident. It is about 12 months since the House last debated those restrictions, and it may assist hon. Members if I briefly recount the stage that we have reached.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a set of papers here that makes no sense of what we are discussing, and no other papers are available from the Vote Office. Either we have the appropriate papers on which we can make a decision, or we shall have to put off the debate on this statutory instrument until we have them.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the difficulties in which hon. Members have been placed. I am having some inquiries made and I will report as soon as I can. It has only just this moment been drawn to my attention.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman. I have just had a brief


consultation with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I should tell the House that I obtained a complete set of documents from the Vote Office last week. To strengthen the hon. Gentleman's representations, may I say that although the Order Paper would have us believe that the papers were laid on 5 November, they were not available in the Vote Office, even in the form in which I have them, until Friday of last week. That does not give us much time, even if we had complete sets.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that they were available to the hon. Gentleman on Friday of last week?

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Mr. Grist: When, following monitoring of a wide range of agricultural products in the aftermath of Chernobyl, we first found it necessary in June 1986 to introduce restrictions to sheep in certain areas, about 8,900 holdings and some 4 million sheep in England, Scotland and Wales were originally affected.
At first, a complete ban on movement was imposed, but such a drastic step could be only a short-term measure. We subsequently devised, in consultation with the farming unions, a modified scheme of control, known as the mark and release scheme, under which sheep were allowed to leave the restricted areas in accordance with normal farming practices provided that they were given a distinctive paint mark. This identified them as ineligible for slaughter.
A refinement of the scheme became possible from October 1986 when the availability of reliable machines for live monitoring of individual sheep in the field meant that only sheep that failed the test needed to be paint-marked. Previously, the only reliable way of monitoring was to kill the sheep in order to obtain a meat sample for laboratory testing.
Experience has proved that, once sheep leave the restricted areas and graze on clean pasture, their radioactivity levels fall rapidly. Therefore, a further refinement of the mark and release arrangements was introduced, whereby purchasers of marked sheep could apply to have them re-monitored. If then their radioactivity has fallen acceptably, the paint mark is effectively cancelled by the attachment of a distinctive ear tag, and they may be sent for slaughter. By regularly changing the colour of the paint we can ensure that we know which sheep have been out of the restricted area for sufficient time, and as soon as we have sufficient remonitoring evidence to justify it all sheep with a particular colour mark can be released for slaughter.
These arrangements may seem complex, and they require regular adjustment to the prohibition orders. However, they work smoothly in practice, and I can confirm that they have the full support of the farming unions. They ensure that interference with normal farming practices is kept to a minimum and that the marketing of sheep can proceed with full protection for the public food chain, while enabling buyers to have a good idea of how long they may have to hold sheep before they can go to slaughter.
At the same time as we were devising the mark and release arrangements, we were continuing to undertake intensive monitoring of particular areas to establish when

restrictions could be removed altogether. The numbers of holdings and animals were gradually reduced, so that by the end of the 1986 marketing season we had been able to remove restrictions from the whole of Scotland and from all but about 318 holdings with 145,000 sheep in Wales.
However, our scientific advisers suspected that in 1987 there could be some recycling of radiocaesium in the poorer, often, peaty, soils of Cumbria, Wales and Scotland, where the lack of minerals, which would immobilise the radiocaesium in other soil areas, would leave the radioactivity free to be absorbed through the pasture roots. An experiment undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the results of which were published in April, confirmed that possibility. The Government therefore undertook extensive precautionary monitoring during the late spring and summer. As a result, evidence was found of a few sheep exceeding our 1,000 bq/kg action level, and therefore we reimposed restrictions in a few small areas of Wales and Scotland that we had de-restricted last year and, in Scotland, extended restrictions to some additional areas that had not previously been subject to controls. Those actions are also covered by the orders.
Even with these additional restrictions, only 485 holdings are now subject to control in Scotland and Wales, compared with the 7,100 holdings in June last year. Even on those holdings, comparatively few sheep are a problem. For example, in Wales this year approximately 150,000 sheep have been live-monitored in order to leave the restricted area, and only about 15 per cent. failed the test. In saying that, I have no desire to appear complacent. One holding under restriction is one too many. The Government are continuing to sponsor research to increase our understanding of how radiocaesium behaves in upland ecological systems. We have also investigated possible remedial treatments of the land or animals affected. Most have drawbacks of one kind or another, and, after discussion with the farming unions, we believe that for the immediate future the present movement and slaughter restrictions provide the best means of ensuring the continued safety of the food chain and the maintenance of confidence in the lamb market with the minimum disruption to farmers' normal husbandry practices.
While the restrictions continue, so does the compensation scheme introduced for farmers affected by them. It is made up of four separate elements that reflect the ongoing developments. The first — Leg 1 — compensated producers of released holdings for loss of variable premium on over-fat animals sold, and for any market price loss. Leg 2 provided compensation for market price loss to producers who were still restricted and selling under the mark and release arrangements. Leg 3 covered certain direct losses for each week the animals were held back by the restrictions. Leg 4 covered monitoring and marking costs that were involved before the animals were moved, under consent, on or after 29 September 1986. Legs 2 and 4 of the scheme continue in operation, and, since the introduction of the restrictions, we have paid out to producers over £3 million in Wales, about £1.5 million in Scotland, and, in total, almost £4.9 million on 9,444 claims.

Mr. George Foulkes: What the Minister says is all very well for the producer, who will be rather generously compensated, but


will he say a word about the consumer and the ways in which radiocaesium and other radioactive elements enter through the food chain, by various paths, into the bodies of human beings? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), is sitting on the Minister's left, rather inappropriately. On behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Under-Secretary of State say why he has consistently refused any sort of systematic examination of radioactivity in human beings? It has been proposed by the Scottish universities research and reactor centre at East Kilbride, and others, that it would now be appropriate to have systematic whole-body monitoring of people in Scotland to find out the cumulative effects of the ingress of radioactivity through the food chain. Why are the Government so concerned about compensation to producers, not about the health of consumers?

Mr Grist: The hon. Gentleman runs the risk of arousing a certain amount of over-concern in the matter. In fact, the amounts of radiation that we are talking about, affecting human beings, are minuscule. Tests are carried out. For instance, at Ysbyty Gwynedd in north Wales, whole-body monitoring has been carried out. There is regular testing of all fresh foodstuffs in Wales and Scotland. There is absolutely no cause for concern. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Grist: No, I shall not at this stage.
Over the past 16 months—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister had replied to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman made a long intervention. I am sure that he can make his own speech later.
Over the past 16 months there have been extensive consultations with the farming unions and others about both the principle and detail involved. The unions welcomed the various elements introduced to reflect ongoing developments as providing speedy, appropriate and fair compensation and accepted that there would inevitably be an element of rough justice in the direct losses element of the scheme, which was designed to put money into producers' pockets quickly. Equally, it was generally agreed that that money should be targeted to those in genuine need and through a scheme that was seen to be fair, legally defensible, affordable and reasonably straightforward to administer.
Subsequently, however, the National Farmers Union put to Ministers the submission that while most producers had been adequately compensated, it considered that for some farmers the existing arrangements had not provided fair compensation. That matter was considered with great care in discussion with the farming unions, but it did not prove possible to find a sound basis for avoiding the rough justice, which it was always agreed would inevitably be a feature of the compensation arrangements.
It is important to see the matter in perspective. Some 2,400 Welsh claims have been paid under the direct losses elements of leg 3 of the scheme and have been accepted as satisfactory by the producers concerned. The NFU has put forward 49 Welsh cases that claim to have received too little compensation. Of those 49 cases, 29 have already

received compensation for direct losses in varying amounts up to £3,670. The remaining 20 chose, as a matter of commercial judgment, to sit outside the scheme and market their animals later.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales agreed to review those cases if they could be shown to contain any special problems or anomalies not already covered by existing compensation arrangements. At present the NFU in Wales is reviewing the details of those cases to see whether any of them fall outside the criteria governing the various elements of the compensation scheme already applied and whether there is adequate evidence available to support such claims.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister is aware that representations on those cases have now been made for many weeks and that the farmers involved have been suffering claim losses for many months. Will he tell the House when a decision will be reached, in view of the difficulties faced by many of those farmers?

Mr. Grist: As I said, they will have to wait for the NFU to finish its review of the outstanding cases. As I told the House, my right hon. Friend has undertaken to review their cases in the light of the NFU submission.
It would be wrong of me to finish without paying full tribute to the co-operation that we have received from the farming unions in devising the mark and release and compensation arrangements and from farmers generally in making the restrictions work successfully.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am concerned about the matter raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Normally, his hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnyd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) joins us in debates such as this. If the orders are not available in the Vote Office, I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would regard that as an important and serious matter. I gather from the signs that you are making to me that they are available in the Vote Office. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends can leave the Chamber and get a complete set.
I have an important question to ask the Minister, and perhaps he could give it careful consideration. These orders were tabled on 5 November and were not available in the Vote Office until Friday. Given the way that the House operates and that it was announced on Friday afternoon that the orders would be on today's Order Paper, I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, given constituency commitments of hon. Members, one day's notice is inadequate. I do not want to labour the point. I have put it to the Minister and I am sure that he and his hon. Friend will look at the matter to ensure that we do not have such difficulty in future.
There are three orders before the House, and I shall speak especially to the one that affects Wales. Their purpose is to give parliamentary authority to the orders that the Minister was responsible for tabling in the summer. The complacency that the Minister displayed in commending the orders to the House was breathtaking, although the hon. Gentleman denied it. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has now left the Chamber, but is coming back, I hope, questioned the Minister about the potential effects on human health as a result of the ingestion of


radioactive material. I was astonished to hear the Minister's assurance that there were absolutely no grounds at all for concern.
I know that the electors of Cardiff, Central are fastidious in their choice, but I did not know that at the last election they sent someone to the House who is not only blessed with the ability to carry out medical examinations, presumably, on the hundreds of thousands of people in Wales who are potentially affected, but also possesses a capacity for understanding nuclear physics. The Minister gave us absolute guarantees that the current levels of radiocaesium in sheep in north Wales are such that they present no hazards at all to humans. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that, but no doubt he is about to enlighten me.

Mr. Grist: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a little illustration. The average consumption of lamb in Britain is 5 kg a year. If every 5 kg consumed has had 1,000 bq, the ingestion of radiation would be about the same as that ingested in travelling from London to Aberdeen or from London to Cornwall. That puts the matter into some context.

Mr. Davies: Is that a scientific opinion? The Minister nods in approval. I am delighted at that, because less than a fortnight ago the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said at the Dispatch Box, when moving the motion on a European document, that the criticism of the scheme was that it had no scientific basis. The Minister tut-tuts and shakes his head, but I think he acknowledges that he has dropped something of a boo-boo. The Minister of State told us that we could now safely raise the level from 1,000 bq to 5,000 bq. His argument was that that was the only scientifically determined level. I suggest that the Minister should consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before he gives such guarantees to the House.
Despite my comments, in broad terms the Opposition welcome the continuation of the order, because it provides some measure of public safeguard and ensures the continuation of compensation payments. It gave us some cause for amusement to hear the Under-Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon about there still being 49 cases outstanding. It now appears that the National Farmers Union is the executive arm of the Welsh Office. The Under-Secretary of State said, "It is okay. We will not debate it as we are waiting for the National Farmers Union to reach its conclusions." It is perhaps proper for the Welsh Office to consult—and I want the Welsh Office to consult — but I remind the Under-Secretary that at the end of the day the responsibility for judging those matters rests not with the National Farmers Union, however convenient that might be and however cosy the relationship is, but with him. I ask that the Minister and his hon. Friend should discuss this matter and that, during the winding-up speech we should be told that the ultimate decision will be taken by the Welsh Office, not by the National Farmers Union.
It is ironic that on 28 October, when we were discussing the proposal from the European Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have had us believe that the current level of 1,000 bq/kg was so low that, with no danger at all, we could countenance the

removal of all restrictions which formed the basis of the regulations and have the accepted level increased to 5,000 bq. Given the comments that we have just had from the Under-Secretary, that is ironic. Nevertheless, it is worth reiterating that Labour Members support the continuation of the orders even though on 31 October the EEC regulations that underpin them were withdrawn.
There has been a lot of criticism about the piecemeal nature of the orders and the way that they were developed during the summer. I do not share that criticism. I understand the way in which the orders progressed. I think it appropriate that the Government arranged periodic monitoring and, quite sensibly, imposed restrictions when it became apparent that they should be imposed. I do not think that the arguments that they were on one year, off another year, or that there was a building-block approach, are valid.
I would appreciate it if the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply, would comment on the fact that in certain areas in Scotland the radioactivity levels are higher this year than they were last year. That must be of concern.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has returned to the Chamber, because he put a grave allegation to the House which was flippantly answered by the Under-Secretary of State. It illustrates that there is cause for concern. What I found worrying was that there was no humility in the approach of the Under-Secretary of State. There was no suggestion that there were questions that were unanswered or that we were dealing with a new phenomenon. There was the brash approach, "Everything is okay. Leave it to us and the National Farmers Union."
The brief of the Under-Secretary of State is not quite accurate, because he told us that everything was okay, that the National Farmers Union had agreed and that we could all proceed quite merrily. I shall read from the Farmers Weekly of 21 August. I suspect that the member of staff who wrote the speech will receive a rocket tomorrow about what he wrote, because the union that supports the Government and all their works had this to say:
The raggedness and tattiness is perceived in the way in which this, and previous governments, have handled the issue of radio-activity, either home-grown or imported. Is it a coincidence that each polluted area has its own nuclear power station or waste-processing plant? Can we be sure that every single becquerel being ingested by the half million or so sheep carries the Chernobyl signature and was not, in fact, vomited from the orifices of nuclear installations at Hunterston and Chapelcross, (south-west Scotland), Sellafield (Cumbria) and Trawsfynydd (north Wales)?
The Minister has said that we can. Perhaps the Government can justify that. In his peroration, however, the Minister said that they would continue their investigations and research and fund the work being done by Liverpool university. If there are elements of doubt—if there is a grave rift between his Department and the National Farmers Union—it does not become the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box with the complacency and self-satisfaction that we saw earlier. He should at least give us some indication that there is doubt in the minds of the experts.
I have referred to the people who write the Minister's speeches. I should also like to mention those who write letters on his behalf. On 24 February this year, a Mr. J. I. Davies, of the Welsh Office, wrote to producers:
A second factor will be the new growth of herbage since the increasing bulk of vegetation will have the effect of


dissipating what radiocaesium remains. Lower levels of radiocaesium in spring pastures will result in lower levels in sheep than those experienced last year.
The exact opposite happened. When the fresh growth came in April and May, it was that fresh growth particularly that gave rise to increased levels of radiocaesium during the course of the year. The Minister said, "It is all okay. We understand it all. We have all the answers. We do not need the research. We do not need to question or consult." That really will not do.
The Minister suggested that the question of compensation had been adequately dealt with. I do not think that he or any of his colleagues—with perhaps the exception of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) — serve on the Standing Committee that debated what became the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under which the orders have been laid. During that Committee stage, we questioned the Minister at length about compensation. The then Minister—now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—said, "Do not worry about compensation; everything will be okay. We shall operate on the basis that the polluter pays. If any compensation is required over and above what is afforded by that principle, it will be covered by insurance." We asked whether that would always be the case: would there never be any circumstances in which the Government would have to intervene? We were assured that it would not be necessary. But the Minister has now told us—I am not sure whether he did so proudly, or with some contrition—that £5 million in compensation had been paid.
The point was put when we debated the orders on 24 October last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) asked then what would happen about compensation. It is interesting to look back 12 months. The Minister said:
We have reserved our position on whether the Soviet Union will be required"—
not requested—
as it should be if the case is proved — to pay compensation. Whatever comes out of the discussions, whether or not the Soviet Union pays up and whether we have an international agreement, the crucial point for the British farmer is that he knows that compensation is not dependent upon … international discussions.—[Official Report, 24 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1455.]
As it happens, I agree that the question of compensation should not be dependent on those international discussions. The Government evaded answering that question in Standing Committee. They also evaded it when the matter was discussed 12 months ago. Therefore, we are entitled to ask two blunt questions. First, has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office requested the Soviet Union to pay the £5 million? They would probably say that that is taking glasnost too far. Secondly, has there been international discussion of this matter? I should hate to think that since the Chernobyl disaster there has been no discussion between scientists, civil servants and politicians of the after-effects of the disaster and who will have to foot the bill. These are serious questions and they deserve an answer.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Government had provided compensation amounting to £3 million. It is important that the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Caernarfon should know, because of the

nature of those communities and of the sheep-farming enterprises in those constituencies, whether the capital values of those farms will be substantially reduced.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: We need to know how long the restrictions will remain in force. The Government have a duty to say what the best scientific advice is about the time that these restrictions must remain in force.

Mr. Davies: It would be unfair of us to expect the Government to say that they will remain in force for 12 months, or for two or three years. The Departments have to reserve their position. They say that if the level rises again next year they will reimpose the restrictions. The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Caernarfon would want the restrictions to be reintroduced to safeguard public opinion of Welsh lamb, which is very important to us all, and to preserve the confidence of the producers. However, that approach does not coincide with the view of the Under-Secretary of State. According to his speech, he has all the answers. Therefore, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is entitled to ask him to give a precise date. The Under-Secretary of State cannot do that. It provides another graphic illustration of the weakness of his arguments.
It is vital to maintain the confidence of both producers and consumers. We must ensure that nothing that we say during this debate or in future discussions prejudices the interests of the producers, or causes concern to the consumers. This is a voluntary scheme. It relies to a large extent on the willingness of farmers represented by the hon. Members for Caernarfon, for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) to participate fully in the scheme. The Minister said nothing about enforcement. However, he has virtually no option but to ignore that as it would be almost impossible. I do not wish to consider evasion as it would lead to another debate.
The Government have taken the view that all things can be left to the scientists and that all the questions are answered. I believe, however, that this is one of those issues where we must learn as we live. We have asked the questions, but we have not had the reassurances to which we are entitled. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply, cannot provide such reassurances, we might be inclined to divide the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) are also here shows the significance of this matter for my county of Gwynedd and our constituencies.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) touched on issues of concern to the farming community in Gwynedd. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for clearing up my question about the order. There has been some mistake in compilation and things have appeared in the wrong order. I am sure that it will not happen again.
We support the orders, because it is necessary to have some semblance of certainty, although there is some doubt about how long they will continue. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is right. If uncertainty continues and the orders come up year after year, the capital value of farms is bound to be affected. I do not think that there has been a massive


effect so far, but if farms in Gwynedd, the north-west of England and parts of Scotland are identified as having a long-term problem, compensation for the lost capital value of the farm will be needed as well as compensation for revenue losses. I hope for some assurance that the Government will bear that in mind if the problem continues.
The Minister said that there are a handful of unresolved compensation claims in Wales. I think he said that there are 49. He said that the claims are in the hands of the National Farmers Union, which is trying to establish a definition of an adequate basis of compensation. The claims have been going on for months. I have constituency cases about which farming unions, I and others have made representations many times, but they have not been resolved. One such is that of Richard Jones of Penygroes, which I discussed with the Secretary of State four weeks ago. Thousands of pounds have been lost. It is not doubted that a loss has been sustained; it is merely a matter of quantifying it. If up to 49 cases remain, I urge the Minister seriously to try to find means of settling them without delay. We are talking about sums which are relatively small in Government terms, but which can make the difference between life and death in terms of cash flow for farmers, many of whom are being squeezed by the banks.

Dr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a strange feature of Government policy on compensation that they should ask the farming unions to present them with a formula for resolving outstanding compensation cases? Does this not show how the Government have handled post-Chernobyl compensation?

Mr. Wigley: Yes, that has clearly been a massive problem for the Government. I well recall the debate in July 1986 when Mr. Mark Robinson, a former Minister at the Welsh Office, replied to the debate and referred to the likelihood that the problem could be wound up in a matter of months. I realise that there was uncertainty in the Government's knowledge at that stage, and all hon. Members would urge the Minister to acknowledge that there is still uncertainty, that we do not know all the answers and that we must be very careful indeed how we treat the problem. As we do not have all the answers, it is unreasonable to pass the buck to the NFU or anyone else to work out the compensation. As we heard earlier, if necessary, ex-gratia payments should be made to help the farmers in the absence of being able to arrive at a scientific formula that bears scrutiny if circumstances change, as indeed circumstances might well change in future.
I want to consider the source of the radiation, as questions over the source of the radiation continue to cause concern in my county. The radiation overwhelmingly came from Chernobyl. The levels should therefore be declining, and that is happening, albeit far too slowly. Scientists have noticed—this was reported in a HTV film a couple of months ago—that the ratio of the radioactive isotopes concerned had not changed in the way in which the scientists had expected. That showed that radioactivity might be coming from another source and that that was compounding radioactivity from Chernobyl.
Given that the areas where radioactivity is affecting sheep lie in the vicinity of nuclear power stations, the coincidence is too great and the question must be

considered in depth. Indeed, the affected areas in north-west Wales, north-west England and Scotland are all close to nuclear power stations. As we know, radioactivity builds on itself. A little radioactivity from one source added to a little from another source adds up to a level which then causes alarm. It is absolutely correct that strict rules should be applied by the Government and the farmers in deciding what is acceptable. We should congratulate the farming fraternity on the way in which it has operated the rules so that Welsh lamb, Scottish lamb and English lamb are commodities that reach the housewife and the shops with utter confidence that they are completely edible.
To that extent, we welcome the Government's approach. However, we urge the Government to be very careful and to use every technique available to identify the source of the radiation that may be affecting sheep and the general environment in the areas close to nuclear power stations. That is particularly relevant when the possibility of new nuclear reactors is being discussed for Wylfa and Trawsfynydd. If the uncertainty that we have seen over the past year continues, it will have a material effect on the attitude towards new reactors at Trawsfynydd and Wylfa. I hope that the Minister will understand that and realise why people must have answers to these questions.
I urge the Government to make clear in future what lessons they have learnt in a more general context. If, God forbid, there were another disaster in the United Kingdom or in a nuclear power station in Europe and a tragedy hit our agricultural fraternity again, how would the Government tackle these matters? What additional techniques and resources are available? How would they ensure that the farmers and others dependent on the farming economy were not hit as hard as they have been over recent years?
In allowing the orders to pass tonight, we do so because we believe that to oppose them would stop something that is necessary for the farmers. Allowing them to go forward does not mean that we are entirely happy with the situation. There are far too many unanswered questions for that to be the case.

Mr. George Foulkes: So far, the accents in the debate have been either Welsh or Anglo-Welsh. I wish to introduce a Scottish accent to make it clear that the Opposition's concern stretches across Scotland as well as Wales and the north of England.
There are many farming interests in my constituency, from the south-west, where early potatoes are growing, to the north-west around Muirkirk, where there are mainly sheep farmers. The concern therefore stretches right across the board. Conservative Members do not always appreciate that some Labour Members represent large farming constituencies, especially in Scotland, such as my own and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not only Labour Members.

Mr. Foulkes: The same applies to Alliance and Scottish National party Members.
It would be counter-productive for any of us representing farming constituencies to be involved in any


way in creating the kind of atmosphere that might result in any kind of scare that might worry consumers or create losses for producers. I say that because the Scottish Office Minister who is to reply to the debate has an unfortunate tendency to accuse the Opposition of scare tactics, extremism and other unfortunate tendencies. Perhaps it is a case of motes and beams. I therefore make it clear that I have no intention whatever of creating any kind of problem along those lines.
I emphasise the comments the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about post-Chernobyl losses and the necessity for speedy and adequate payments to be made to people, including some of my constituents, who are suffering great losses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) rightly said, we were utterly astonished when, instead of removing or reducing some of the restrictions in the current year, the Scottish Office not only reintroduced restrictions but extended them to areas not previously covered, thus confounding its own previous statements. It is vital for the economics of the farming interests concerned that compensation should be speedy and adequate.
As I said in an intervention, there is also concern about the cumulative effect on health of various paths in the food chain leading to the build-up of radioactivity in human beings. The hon. Member for Caernarfon rightly pointed out that although Chernobyl is the largest and most clearly identifiable problem—I accept that by spectral analysis one can identify the sources of radioactive substances—there are other sources of radioactivity, such as Sellafield, Hunterston and Chapel cross. Recently we have seen statistics showing the high level of leukaemia near nuclear power plants, which can only reinforce our anxieties.
After Chernobyl, Professor Murdoch Baxter of the Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre said that there should be a ban on milk for three or four weeks, but the Scottish Office rejected that. The result was that all of us in the south-west of Scotland continued to consume milk which, according to some experts, was highly radioactive.
We know that there have been restrictions on lambs with radioactivity above a certain level, but the fact that the limit was set means that we have been consuming meat from lambs where radioactivity is just below that level. Therefore, radioactive lamb has been consumed, albeit below the critical level. Indeed, we continue to consume such lamb, as I did the other day.
As I am sure the Scottish Office Minister is aware, it only became clear a few days ago that trout in Loch Doon and Loch Dee in my constituency have a level of radioactivity three or four times higher than the permitted level. Some people may say that few people eat a great deal of trout, by my constituents at Dalmellington and Bellsbank, 40 per cent. of whom are unemployed, supplement their diet by catching trout — legally, if course—so they will be consuming that radioactivity.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that before the Chernobyl disaster fish were caught in Trawsfynydd lake with radioactivity in excess of 1,000 bq/ kg? That shows the validity of our questions.

Mr. Foulkes: That would come from the outflow into Trawsfynydd, which would affect the trout. That certainly reinforces the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Recently we received information that hare and rabbits in the south-west of Scotland have 4,500 bq/kg. Add to

that the effects of root crops, fruit, vegetables and other foodstuffs, and we are seeing a build up of radioactivity in people in the south-west of Scotland and, presumably, in other parts.
As the Minister knows, I have suggested, and, more important, the SURRC has suggested to the Scottish Office a programme of systematic whole body monitoring of the people in the south-west. Until now volunteers have been able to have whole-body monitoring, but there has not been a systematic, scientific study and analysis of the effects of the build up of radioactivity in our bodies. Elsewhere, random samples have been taken. Recently I read of a farmer in Yorkshire who had had his body monitored and found that he had a high level of radioactivity. There have been random examples in Cumbria and elsewhere which have caused anxiety.
The SURRC is suggesting a systematic scheme of whole-body monitoring for people in Scotland, particularly the south-west. The Minister of State, the noble Lord Sanderson, has, unfortunately, rejected that. The Minister who will reply to today's debate answers for him in this House and I hope that he will give us a clear indication of the position.
On several occasions my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has called for an inquiry into he effects of Chernobyl, but he has constantly been turned down by the Government. They seem to want to keep it quiet. As I said before, none of us want to create a scare. That is the last thing that any of us would want to do. However, if there is a real problem, we want to identify it and do something about it. The Government seem to want to cover up any problem that may exist for human health.
I may have gone a little wider than the orders, but I have drawn from them, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will say why the Scottish Office consistently turns down the excellent proposal for checking whether those of us who live in the south-west of Scotland have been affected adversely by Chernobyl and other radioactivity in the area, which is continuing. If a systematic study proves that there has not been a build-up of radioactivity in the bodies of those of us living in the south-west of Scotland, as one of them, there will be no one happier than me.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The Minister likened the ingestion of 5 kg of irradiated lamb to a train ride to Aberdeen. As a scientist, I find that comparison strange, to say the least.
The problem not faced by the Government's arrangements is the cumulative effect of caesium 137 and other isotopes. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) touched on the fact that trout in Trawsfynydd lake had high levels of radiation—over 1,000 bq/kg—and that they were present as far back as 1978. That would not necessarily be the result of the outfall from the nuclear installation because, as it is a gas-cooled reactor, any leak of radiation is vented into the atmosphere and would require precipitation to come back down and into the lake. Therefore, it is likely that there is a large area around Trawsfynydd — as there may be around some of the other older type reactors—that is contributing to the levels that were discovered through the Chernobyl incident.
On the assumption that people do not live by sheepmeat alone, there may be a considerable accumulation of caesium and other elements such as strontium 90,


which lodges in the skeleton and has a half-life of several thousand years. Therefore it is much more dangerous to the biological systems of livestock and humans in the downwind area of Trawsfynydd and other reactors. I believe that further testing should be part of the arrangements made by the Government for the good of the human population and I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon that the source of the radiation should be identified. I believe that it should be easy to do that.

Mr. Geraint Howells: It gives me great pleasure to support the orders. We are duty bound to support all our constituents and all the people in various parts of Britain who are facing this problem.
I will not pursue what has been said by other Opposition Members. I believe that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has said it all. Many of his constituents are involved. He knows all about it and he knows the history of it. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) outlined the problem well, as did the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. In my view the problems facing the farmers in my constituency in north Wales and various parts of Britain are, first, compensation, secondly, restrictions and, thirdly, lamb sales.
We all assume that the majority of farmers have been fairly compensated. However, last year many farmers in north Wales—whom I know very well—and in many parts of Britain were not adequately compensated. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that fact. At this late hour, I make a plea that the Minister will reconsider the financial problems facing those unfortunate farmers who were not properly compensated last year. He believes in justice, so I am sure that he will reconsider their case.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) asked how long the restrictions will last. It is a major problem for those who live outside the area in mid and south Wales. Many of my constituents ask whether the restrictions will last for another 12 months, three years or five years—some have suggested 100 years. If that matter is clarified it will relieve the worries of many of my constituents.
The largest problem is Welsh lamb consumption and the lamb trade in this country and within the Community. The Minister, having had a word with his seniors and other officials in the Ministry, should consider giving additional financial aid to Welsh Lamb Enterprise for its excellent marketing of lamb and to the Meat and Livestock Commission, which operates so successfully in various parts of the country.
The Minister knows that many parts of the country are dependent on the sheep sector, so the interests of the industry must be safeguarded. I hope that the Minister will consider compensation restrictions and give additional financial aid for lamb sales.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has made

it clear that the official Opposition support the orders, which are intended to protect the public from the risks of food that has been contaminated by radiation.
It is important and significant that the Government are introducing the orders, and that the House is debating them, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1965 nearly 19 months after the Chernobyl disaster.
I shall concentrate on the Scottish order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly dwelt on the Welsh aspects. I understand that there will be a separate debate for England in due course.
I pay tribute to sheep farmers in the affected areas of Scotland for their full and wholehearted co-operation with the monitoring operation and the restrictions that have been necessary under the scheme. Those restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep have undoubtedly caused difficulty and hardship for a number of farmers, particularly hill farmers, although we accept, understand and are grateful for the fact that the compensation scheme now seems to be operating reasonably satisfactorily in Scotland, despite the difficulties in Wales that a number of other hon. Members have referred to. Those farmers and their employees have co-operated fully and accepted the need for restrictions in the interests of public health and the reputation and quality of Scottish lamb. It would be disgraceful if the contamination threshold were to be increased from 1,000 bq/kg, as it presently stands, to 5,000 bq/kg, as has been suggested by the Euratom article 31 committee. I am referring to the European Community document 7183/87 which we debated on 28 October.
We understand that consideration is being given to increasing the threshold which triggers action such as that represented by the orders. The Labour party thinks that such a watering-down of the precautions would be wrong in the light of the scientific evidence from Japan and the more stringent precautions which apply in some other European countries. It would make a mockery of the orders and of the restrictions which have applied since June 1986.
Consumers have confidence in the current precautions. That is why there has been no significant change in the market for lamb in the last 18 months. Any increase in permitted contamination would damage consumer confidence in lamb and in other products from the affected areas.
If the Government lift the threshold they might seek to extricate themselves from a longer-term and more expensive commitment than was originally expected in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl incident. If that is what they have in mind I suggest that they forget it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has already made an overwhelming case for an inquiry to make it possible for all shades of opinion to draw all the lessons to be learnt from Chernobyl. It seems unreasonable that the Government should refuse to respond to that request.
The industry and the public are entitled to expect the Government to maintain the highest safeguards against the effects of radioactive contamination from any source. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), whose constituency is affected by the orders and who also happens to be the Minister of State responsible for industry and energy at the Scottish Office, made a statement last week claiming that detailed


contingency plans for a major accident at a Scottish nuclear installation were not justified. That is not acceptable in the light of experience.
I shall make four specific points. First, we understand that the restrictions apply to 130,000 sheep on 69 farms in nine districts in Scotland. The biggest concentration is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). What will be the cost of monitoring, administering and paying compensation as a consequence of the orders?
Secondly, I understand that 78,000 of the sheep, on 39 farms, were not covered by previous orders. Why and how are areas which were not affected by fallout from Chernobyl last year apparently affected this year? Could it be that we have in Scotland another hot spot of the kind found in Yorkshire last year? The House and the country are entitled to an explanation.
Thirdly, is it possible that further areas will be affected? Most importantly, how long will the problem continue? We understand that the half-life of caesium 137 is 30 years which might cause long-term problems. The Government have had time to obtain full scientific advice and evidence and should know how much longer such areas will have to labour under restrictions.
Fourthly, will the Minister say something about contamination in the ground, heather, grass, wild animals and in people who live in the affected areas? If lambs are being contaminated, it is probable—to put it mildly—that other species will be affected, too. We are entitled to some explanations about that.
We support the orders and welcome the debate. We want clear undertakings that the Government will maintain and, where necessary, improve the safeguards against radioactive contamination from any source, whether at home or abroad. Complacent reassurance can be no substitute for effective precautions from the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have had a constructive debate on the orders, which continue the emergency provisions on the movement and slaughter of sheep in north Wales and in certain parts of Dumfries and Galloway, and Strathclyde and Central regions, including my constituency. Several detailed points have been made, and I shall try to cover as many as possible during the time available to me.
I should tell the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that there is no complacency in the Government. Nor is there the scaremongering that we have heard from him and some of his colleagues.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is in her place. I was interested to hear her comments on Radio Scotland this morning. She said that the orders related to increasing compensation and that she opposed them because she thought that more compensation than was being provided should be paid, but she thought that they were a step in the right direction. I hope she now realises that the orders have nothing to do with compensation and that, contrary to what she said this morning, farmers in her constituency will be allowed to move their sheep. There are no restrictions on the movement of sheep. The orders relate to the slaughtering of sheep.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is clear that compensation underpins many aspects of the orders. As has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others, farmers are still worried about compensation. Although the National Farmers Union may accept the broad principles of the orders, as do all hon. Members, there must be a case for reconsidering the capital values of farms in the long term.

Mr. Forsyth: On the radio this morning the hon. Lady said that the orders dealt with compensation. I assure her that the farmers in her constituency and throughout Scotland, who have been ably represented by the Scottish National Farmers Union, are content with the orders and have co-operated splendidly in—

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has not answered my questions.

Mr. Forsyth: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman. Several of his points were in the scaremongering category. The substance of his argument related to whole-body monitoring. He accused the Government of not being prepared to consider whole-body monitoring and of having resisted it. The Government have contributed towards whole-body monitoring of people by several laboratories, including the Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre at East Kilbride, where a project has been under way since late 1986 to measure radioactivity in people from all areas of Scotland.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to learn that the results of the research will be published in March or April next year, and that results to date confirm that decisions taken following the Chernobyl accident were based on a sound assessment of the doses likely to be received following consumption of foodstuffs affected as a result of post-Chernobyl deposition. I hope that we shall hear no more scare stories such as those that we heard from the hon. Gentleman tonight about trout, hare and rabbit.

Mr. Foulkes: I accurately predicted what the Minister would say. We know him only too well in Scotland. Will he confirm that the only people who have been given whole-body monitoring in East Kilbride are those who have volunteered? Therefore, the study is in no way systematic. Will the Minister also confirm that Professor Baxter and his staff have put forward a proposal to the Scottish Office for a systematic scheme, which the Minister and his colleagues have turned down, in spite of the fact that such a scheme would show clearly whether there is an effect, rather than just taking in people off the streets?

Mr. Forsyth: Not being a scientist, I am content to wait for the results to be published in April next year. No doubt the hardworking people in the Scottish Universities' Research and Reactor Centre at East Kilbride will take grave offence at the doubt into which the hon. Gentleman casts the quality of their work.

Dr. Thomas: The Minister will be aware that a whole-body monitoring study has been carried out at Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor, with some serious results, including the discovery of a level of 3,000 becquerels per kilogram in one of my constituents. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, because I was coming to his point about the influence of nuclear power stations.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) seemed to suggest that we should have a lower limit than the 1,000 bq/kg that is applied to sheep. I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend said about that. He described eating 5 kg of lamb as broadly equivalent to taking a journey to Aberdeen. I am sure that both experiences are equally pleasant. Perhaps I could give another analogy. If one ate 5 kg of lamb a year, the dosage would be equivalent to 0·06 mSv. A comparable example might be a chest X-ray, which represents 0·1 mSv. My hon. Friend was right to put these matters into their proper context.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister is really misinterpreting the exchange. My point was that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales was speaking with great authority, as if there could be no possible questioning of the scientific evidence. We do not accept that radioactivity and the cumulative effects of radioactive poisons can be the subject of that much scientific precision.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are areas of uncertainty and difficulty. I hope, therefore, that he will pay tribute to the way in which the Government have tackled the new, post-Chernobyl position and ensured that there has been no contamination of the food chain.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly, and other Opposition Members, asked why some areas of Scotland had higher levels of radioactivity this year than last. The hon. Gentleman will chide me for my certainty, but when the radioactive cloud deposited caesium 137 through rain last year, the radioactive contaminant was on the surface of the grass and was taken in by animals and subsequently discovered. In the following year the caesium had been washed into the ground, and, depending on the nature of the subsoil, the minerals present in it—especially in clays—absorbed the caesium. In areas that were mineral deficient—particularly in north Wales and parts of Scotland—the effect was to concentrate the levels of caesium 137, which then became part of the plant structure. I hope that that explanation will help.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad that the Government—like the rest of us—are learning about the issue. Is the Minister in a position to inform the House whether the problem is likely to recur next year, or the year after that?

Mr. Forsyth: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will continue to ensure the protection of public health. We are not in the business of anticipating what will happen. Frankly, had it not been for experiments carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year, we would not have been able to anticipate the higher level of radiation arising from the vegetation. If the hon. Gentleman knows the answers to those questions, as he clearly does, why has he asked them of me from the Dispatch Box?
The other great scare that was put forward by Opposition Members was that the fall-out might have come not from Chernobyl, but from nuclear power stations. That is stretching the truth to an extraordinary extent. It is evident that the caesium isotopes that have come from Chernobyl have a distinctive fingerprint.

Caesium 137 and 134 isotopes appear in the ratio of 2:1. The fall-out that one would expect from a nuclear power station would normally show a ratio between those two isotopes of about 10:1. So the Chernobyl fingerprint is clear, and stretches across north Wales as well as Scotland. It is irresponsible to suggest that the problems that we have came from anything other than Chernobyl and to advance arguments against nuclear power in this context, which is what Opposition Members are about.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I must press on.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) asked how long the restrictions would last. They will last as long as the monitoring shows that there is a problem of radioactivity in sheep.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about compensation from the Soviet Union. The USSR is not a party to any of the international conventions relating to third party liability in nuclear energy, and is therefore not subject to any specific treaty obligation to compensate for damage caused outside its national boundaries. I hope that that will help him.
Compensation cases in Wales were mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Surely the point is that the NFU has been asked whether there is any additional information or argument in support of its members that it wishes to put to the Secretary of State before he comes to a decision on the claim. I understand that we are still waiting for the NFU to give that information to the Secretary of State.
The Government recognise that the restrictions occasion difficulties and additional costs for sheep farmers affected, and we are currently providing compensation in two ways, which I believe have been broadly acceptable to the industry as a whole. It is difficult to forecast with any precision to what extent caesium arising from the Chernobyl incident will continue to cause a problem. However, at this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that some restrictions will remain necessary in the future.
We are continuing to monitor the situation carefully. I assure the House that we are unwavering in our determination to ensure that the public are not exposed to any unacceptable risk. We are continuing to examine what long-term measures may be required. However, for the immediate future, we believe that the present movement in slaughter controls provides the most practicable way of ensuring the continued safety of the food chain and the maintenance of public confidence in British lamb with the minimum of disruption to farmers' normal husbandry practices. Accordingly, I commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No.3) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1837), dated 21st October 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.

FOOD PROTECTION

Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No.4) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1888), dated 3rd November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.


That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 5) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1894), dated 5th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.—[Mr. Grist.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

BUILDING SOCIETIES

That the draft Building Societies (Limited Credit Facilities) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

PRICING OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document Number 4105/87 on the pricing of medicinal products for human use; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the adoption of such measures will be consistent with the arrangements satisfactorily operating in the United Kingdom at present.

PRICE INDICATORS FOR FOODSTUFFS AND NON-FOOD PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4083/84, 4687/84 8599/85, 5808/86 and 6213/87 on consumer protection in respect of the indication of prices of foodstuffs and non-food products; agrees that legislation in this area is desirable; and supports the adoption and implementation of an effective measure to assist consumers in making price comparisons.

KNITTING YARNS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11063/86 (Part 4) on standard sizes for knitting yarns and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 5th May 1987; agrees that legislation in this area is desirable; and supports the adoption of an effective measure, which will help the creation of a common market for knitting yarns.

HAZARDOUS IMITATION PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9592/86 on hazardous imitation products;

agrees that legislation in this area is desirable; and supports the adoption of an effective measure, which will remove barriers to trade and help protect consumers throughout the Community from dangerous imitations.

TOY SAFETY

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10443/86 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th March 1987, and 8845/87 on the safety of toys; endorses the view that the proposed legislation is necessary; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early adoption of measures which will provide more comprehensive protection in the field of toy safety.

PRE-PACKAGED LIQUIDS (BOTTLE SIZES)

That this House takes note of European Community Document 11063/86 (Part 3) on the making up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 23rd October 1987; agrees that legislation in this area is desirable; and welcomes the United Kingdom's endeavours to encourage the adoption of an effective measure which will help towards the creation of a common market for alcoholic drinks.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of Economic, Industrial and Commercial Development of Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before 4 o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for 2 hours at the sitting.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Anna Chertkova

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of members of the Church in Wales in Holyhead. This petition relates to the detention of the Soviet Christian Anna Chertkova, who is detained in a prison psychiatric hospital.
The petitioners pray that
the House of Commons do encourage the Foreign Secretary to make representations to the Soviet Government for the purpose of achieving Miss Chertkova's release and reunion with relatives in the West.
There are 23 signatories to the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — North Sea Cod Quota

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Sir Julian Ridsdale: My reason for raising the matter of North sea cod quotas is that our fishermen in Yorkshire and East Anglia feel that they are being treated unfairly. Last year the cod catch by the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers' Organisation was 6,800 tonnes. This year's quota was fixed at 3,560 tonnes because of a 28 per cent. reduction in the United Kingdom's quota on 1986. However, the scientists got their estimates and sums wrong. There was a glut of cod in the North sea. Therefore, later in 1987 the United Kingdom quota was considerably increased, but the Yorkshire and East Anglia quota rose to only 6,250 tonnes—well under last year's catch. We believe that we should have had at least 1,000 tonnes more cod quota in Yorkshire and East Anglia and that, because fishermen and other producers will not reach the quotas that they have been given, that will perhaps be used as an excuse by the EEC for lowering our national quota next year. A far better way of conservation is to have a larger mesh size rather than smaller quotas.
Pressures grew on the fisheries scientists in the first half of the year to review their assessment of the North sea cod stock, because fishermen's observations contradicted their scientific advice. Eventually, they revised their recommendations for the North sea total available catch to 175,000 tonnes, a 40 per cent. increase, bringing it roughly on a par with last year's figure. The United Kingdom quota was consequently increased to 74,290 tonnes. Meanwhile, repeated attempts were being made by all the producer organisations to find out what their sectoral quotas would be this year. Repeated promises were made, but we were not given any final confirmation of our sectoral quota for North sea cod until 22 July, the day after a delegation from the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers' Organisation visited the Minister to express concern over North sea cod quotas. The quota allocated to YAFPO on 22 July was 6,250 tonnes, representing 8·4 per cent. of the increased United Kingdom quota that was then in force. That was considerably less than we had anticipated.
In April 1986 our quota had been unilaterally reduced from 7,125 to 6,170 tonnes, with no satisfactory explanation. We expected the restoration of at least some of that 1,000 tonnes cut, but little was restored. We ask the Minister to explain why that was done, because the fisheries association in Yorkshire and East Anglia believes that that has not been done.
By the time the quota was given to us, we had already taken about 5,700 tonnes—over 90 per cent. of our annual quota. That left us in a virtually impossible position for the remainder of the year. Stringent restrictions were applied immediately to our boats for the months of August and September, but we could not avert our annual quota being exhausted well before the end of the year. On 10 September a YAFPO delegation was again invited to meet the Minister, but he declined to give us an additional allocation of North sea cod quota. On 11 September we calculated that our annual quota had run out and we duly informed the Ministry. On 18 September

our members' cod licences were revoked so that they could no longer retain on board or land any cod from the North sea.
Repeated requests have been made to the Government to reallocate to YAFPO some of the North sea cod quota that other producers oganisations are not likely to catch, but so far those requests have fallen on deaf ears. The FPO Ltd.—the deep-sea PO, based in Grimsby—recently gave up 500 tonnes of its North sea cod quota, but we have only received our pro rata allocation of that, 44 tonnes. That will not significantly improve fishing opportunities for us.
We did not know the size of the North sea quota until 22 July. We received significantly less quota than anticipated. No special consideration was given to inshore fishermen like ourselves who are dependent on a single stock. That is the position of all our members, for at least part of the year. In Yorkshire, cod is the premium catch all year. In East Anglia, the boats rely on cod from October until March. Drastic cuts in quota are not necessarily offset by significant fishing opportunities for other species.
I agree that some small block allocations have been made to the Yorkshire cobles—50 tonnes—and to boats in the southern part of East Anglia—20 tonnes—in recognition of their particular reliance on the winter cod fishery. However, the bulk of our fleet remains on a 5 per cent. catch only. We have been criticised by the Government for being too generous towards our members in the first part of the year. We have significantly restricted our boats all year, yet we still ran out of quota in mid-September. Most of the Scottish POs have operated higher quotas than us nearly all year, and, right on our doorstep, Grimsby fishermen have had virtually unrestricted North sea cod fishing for most of the year. Even now, they have quota remaining. How can such a quota distribution possibly be fair?
Let me suggest the action that is required for the future. For the remainder of this year, our only hope is to secure an additional quota from the amount that is unlikely to be caught by other POs. However, POs are naturally reluctant to give up any fish at all, and, barring 500 tonnes from The FPO Ltd., nothing has yet been forthcoming. If a reallocation is not made soon, there will be insufficient time left in which to catch it, and the United Kingdom will again fall short of its national quota.
In my view, the Government need to re-examine the figures on which they base their quota distribution for next year, and explain convincingly why YAFPO has run out of fish quota well before the end of the year, rather than other POs that gave their members more generous quotas.
There must be an end to the wild fluctuations of 30 to 40 per cent. which we frequently see in total allowable catches from year to year. Such enormous variations do not encourage rational forward planning. We need to know what our sectoral quota is going to be much earlier in the year. To manage it properly, we need to have it by mid-January at the latest, rather than mid-July. We need more effective technical conservation measures. Our fishermen are committed to conservation because it is their livelihood. We contend that quotas have limited value for conservation, as they are easily circumvented on the continent—witness the Belgian experience this year. Any fish that is inadvertently caught in excess of the quota must be dumped back into the sea, by which time it is already dead.
Both we and the scientists agree that far too much immature cod is being caught in the North sea, but they place their faith in the quota system. To prevent the unnecessary slaughter of young fish, we say that measures are needed, such as larger mesh sizes, larger minimum fish landing sizes and prohibitions on fishing in areas where there are significant concentrations of spawning or immature fish.
I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply to my points. I shall now make way for some of my hon. Friends who feel just as strongly as I do.

Mr. John Townend: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) for giving me time briefly to put one or two points that are especially important to the Bridlington fishermen.
The fact that 90 per cent. of the quota had been used by the time that the 1987 quota was finally allocated by the Government at the end of July was a particular blow to the Bridlington fishermen, who are 90 per cent. dependent on one species — North sea cod. Their position is much worse than that of fishermen in areas where the fishing effort is spread over a number of species.
I feel, therefore, that special consideration should have been given to YAFPO when the Government obtained an extra 1,000 tonnes of North sea cod quota from the Germans under a swap arrangement. Despite representations from me and from the industry, that did not happen. We received only 84 tonnes, the rest going pro rata to other areas that still had quota left.
We felt even more aggrieved when recently The FPO Ltd., the deep sea fish producers' association based in Grimsby, gave up 500 tonnes of North sea cod quota. As that FPO is based on the Humber, special consideration should have been given to the east coast fishermen in YAFPO, who by this time were restricted to a 5 per cent. by-catch. Once again our fishermen received only 44 tonnes—a pro rata allocation—the balance going to areas such as Scotland that still had plenty of quota left.
Due to poor weather in October, the landings of cod in Scotland have been lower than expected. If no Government action is taken, it looks as though the United Kingdom cod catch could be 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes below the 1987 quota. That would be tragic, as the Bridlington boats will have been unable to fish for cod for almost five months. That could reduce the United Kingdom's total quota for next year.
The following immediate action is required. There must be a reassessment of the take-up of quota and a reallocation of the likely shortfall to FPOs that have no quota left for normal fishing. What is even more important is that this should never happen again. It is essential that the basis of the allocation of quota should be re-examined and made more equitable. Something is clearly wrong when Bridlington boats run out of quota by August, despite strict catch restrictions, while Grimsby has been free fishing all year, without any catch restrictions, and still has quota left. If that continues next year, the obvious answer will be for Bridlington boats to leave YAFPO and join the Grimsby FPO. That shows just how stupid the present situation is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich pointed out, we need to know the quota for next year by January so that we can manage it effectively.
Quotas are inefficient and have been proved to be an unfair method of conserving fish stocks. YAFPO

maintains, and I agree with it, that the best way to conserve fish stocks is to prevent the slaughter of young fish. Much bigger net sizes are needed. Fishermen in Bridlington and in the rest of YAFPO have set an example by voluntarily increasing their mesh size. We feel that this gesture should be recognised by the Ministry and that it should mean that they qualify for an increased quota next year.
I appreciate that in the EEC negotiations my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues have been fighting for increased mesh sizes. This is another example of the EEC acting against the interests of this country. The situation in Bridlington is desperate. I emphasise the word "desperate." Urgent action is needed to get surplus quotas reallocated. For far too long Scotland has had too great an influence in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—probably because it has a Member in the Cabinet. We look to my hon. Friend the Minister to start the pendulum swinging back and to give English east coast fishermen a fair crack of the whip.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) for initiating a debate on the North sea cod quota. It is one of the major interests of fishermen along the east coast of the United Kingdom. In his typically generous and fair-minded way, he has allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) to join in the debate. Both my hon. Friends have, as I expected, referred to problems that are causing concern to fishermen in their constituencies. However, I am sure that they will bear with me if I seek to set local concerns against the wider background.
The total allowable catch—TAC—for North sea cod is set each year by the Council of Ministers of the European Community in the light of the available scientific advice and of consultations with Norway, who shares joint ownership of the stock. The United Kingdom is guaranteed, under the 1983 common fisheries policy settlement, the very favourable share of 47 per cent. of that part of the TAC available to the Community. That represents over twice the share allocated to any other member state.
The scientific advice on the North sea cod stock is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The ICES scientists, who, of course, include our own scientists, have been drawing attention for some years to the overexploitation of the North sea cod stock and the consequent decline in the spawning stock. The management advice for 1987 was that fishing mortality, which corresponds with fishing effort, needed to be reduced by at least 30 per cent. to allow more of the cod to reach spawning age. The scientists preferred a TAC of 100,000 tonnes but recommended that in no circumstances should it exceed 125,000 tonnes. Faced with this advice and in agreement with Norway, the Council of Ministers set the TAC at 125,000 tonnes, which was a sharp reduction on the 1986 level. The United Kingdom quota was set at 54,770 tonnes.
In May this year, however, ICES approved an upwards reassessment of the strength of the 1985-class of North sea cod, which first entered the fishery in late 1986 and early 1987. That reassessment, based on an international young fish survey, is now considered to have been rather


overoptimistic, but the ICES advice in May was that if the current TAC was maintained, the reduction in fishing effort would have to be much higher than intended and the TAC could safely be increased somewhat while allowing a significant recovery in the spawning stock.
In the light of that advice, the United Kingdom pressed the Commission to approach Norway and propose an increase, which it accepted. Agreement was reached on an increase to 175,000 tonnes, which the Council formally adopted on 30 June. The United Kingdom quota was revised at a level of 74,290 tonnes—from 54,770 tonnes—which is higher than our total recorded catch last year. In August we negotiated a quota swap with Germany which brought us an additional 1,000 tonnes. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will recognise that the Government have done everything possible to obtain for British fishermen the maximum possible availability of North sea cod, consistent with the scientific advice on the conservation of the stock.
I must emphasise the importance of following scientific advice. That represents the only rational hope of conserving stocks for future years. I know that fishermen can always produce anecdotal evidence that seems to challenge the validity of that scientific advice, but my right hon. Friends the Minister and Minister of State, who are more involved in fisheries matters than I am, are fully satisfied that the development of the cod fishery in the North sea this year has been entirely consistent with the overall view taken by scientists. There is a scarcity of mature cod and a relative abundance of young fish as my hon. Friends have said, but the essential need from a conservation point of view is to allow a sufficient proportion of these young cod to survive to maturity to rebuild the spawning stock on which all our future livelihoods depend.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Will my hon. Friend comment on the larger mesh sizes, or was he about to do so?

Mr. Thompson: I shall. I come now, with apologies to my hon. Friends, to the matter which touches them most closely—how we have managed the United Kingdom quota in 1987.
The arrangements for managing our quotas have been devised and refined in close consultation with the United Kingdom industry as a whole. In matters like this, there will inevitably be conflicts of view and differences between different groups of fishermen, but our aim has been to operate on a basis which is accepted as widely as possible as fair and reasonable.
In the case of North sea cod and certain other white fish stocks, the fisheries departments have gone so far, in terms of involving the industry, as to introduce a system of sectoral quotas which allows individual producer organisations to obtain a share of the United Kingdom quota for the year to manage as they think best in the interests of their members.
For fishermen outside such sectoral quota arrangements, the fisheries departments monitor closely the level of catches against the residual quota availability and, in regular consultation with the organisations concerned, take appropriate action. This year, it was necessary to impose monthly catch limits per vessel from as early as February, and they have been maintained and intensified, despite the increase in the United Kingdom quota which

I mentioned earlier, as the year has advanced. But I think that the fishermen whom my hon. Friends represent are fishing under sectoral quota arrangements and I will briefly describe those.
Sectoral quotas are calculated on the basis of the share of the total United Kingdom catch taken by vessels in membership of the organisation in question over a recent reference period. There clearly has to be an objective basis for calculating such quotas and the only reasonable basis which we have been able to devise, in consultation with the industry, is on the basis of vessels' track records. The system, as it operated up to this year, involved awarding a provisional sectoral quota on the basis of the organisation's share in the previous year, with a deduction for safety, and, once the final catch figures for the previous year are known, the recalculation of each organisation's definitive sectoral quota. Unfortunately, because of complications introduced with the method of calculation to provide adequately for vessels with incomplete track records, the calculation of the definitive sectoral quotas this year was not completed until July and my hon. Friends complained bitterly about that. We are approaching next year's arrangements on a different basis to avoid that undesirable element of delay. Once the organisations have got their sectoral quotas, whether provisional or definitive, it is up to them to manage their members' fishing to remain within the quotas. They are also obliged to report their total catches regularly to the fisheries department concerned.
After a long-winded explanation of the background, I come to the problems of the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers' Organisation. I understand full well the concerns raised by my hon. Friends in relation to that organisation. The producers' organisation had meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in July and again in September and there has been a considerable correspondence, including with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, so I can assure my hon. Friend that the ground has been very thoroughly covered, but I shall briefly outline the position as we see it. YAFPO elected to take a sectoral quota for cod at the beginning of the year and undertook the responsibility to manage it. YAFPO's provisional allocation, given in March, was 3,560 tonnes. This represented the organisation's 1986 share, which was 8·1 per cent. of the original United Kingdom quota for 1987, with a safety margin deducted. It was clear that the definitive allocation would be a little higher, but YAFPO had at that stage no reason to expect that it would be substantially higher. The prospect of an increase in the TAC did not become clear until mid-May, yet by the end of April YAFPO had, as I understand it, taken over 3,000 tonnes and by the end of May had in fact exceeded the provisional allocation for the year. YAFPO did impose quota restrictions on its members in March, April and May but these were substantially more generous than those imposed by fisheries departments on the non-sectoral fisheries from February onwards.
Help came in the form of the increased TAC which gave YAFPO another chance to get its fishing under control. Even though the calculation of the definitive allocations was delayed, YAFPO had no reason to assume a substantial increase over their 1986 share of 8·1 per cent. in fact the final allocation notified to YAFPO in July was 8·4 per cent. of the revised United Kingdom quota, amounting to 6,250 tonnes. However, the quotas set by YAFPO for its members for June and July were only


slightly below the levels of March to May and were again very substantially higher than the quotas applied to the non-sectoral fishery.

Mr. John Townend: I do not wish to delay my hon. Friend, but as time is pressing perhaps he will address himself to two matters of great interest to us. How can it be that Grimsby, which has had no restrictions and free fishing all year, still has plenty of quota left? Secondly, when we had 1,000 tonnes from Germany and 500 tonnes from FPO Limited, why was not a larger allocation made to YAFPO so that the fishermen could continue fishing, rather than allocating it to other areas which still had quota left?

Mr. Thompson: I was just coming to that point.
It came about that YAFPO found itself in early September having exhausted its sectoral quota. The organisation approached my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and asked for help, in particular for a preferential share of the 1,000 tonnes that we had obtained from Germany, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington put it, on swap.
My right hon. Friend made it quite clear to YAFPO, as he had to, that he was not in a position to give it more cod quota without obtaining the agreement of others in the fishery who had a claim to it. He undertook, however, to give its case what support he could. Accordingly, the matter was discussed at a meeting with the North sea white fish industry generally on 22 September, at which we obtained agreement to an additional allocation to YAFPO of 150 tonnes above its pro rata share of the 1,000 tonnes, giving a total quota increase of 234 tonnes. That additional 150 tonnes was justified in terms of compensation for opportunities which YAFPO had lost as a result of others' overfishing to the west of Scotland, but

other organisations similarly affected were not given any compensation this year—so YAFPO received preferential treatment, albeit on a limited scale.
We have, of course, continued to monitor closely the non-sectoral fishery and the uptake of the other sectoral quotas. We have recently been able to persuade one organisation, the Fish Producers Organisation Limited of Humberside, to release 500 tonnes of its uncaught balance for reallocation to others in greater need. But given the current state of non-sectoral fishery and the fact that all other sectoral groups had taken at least 86 per cent. of their quota, we had no alternative but to reallocate the 500 tonnes on a pro rata basis, giving YAFPO an additional 44 tonnes. We shall continue to monitor quota uptake and pursue any further scope for reallocations, but I have to say that we have little hope of finding further quantities, as most, if not all, of the sectoral groups, as well as the non-sectoral fishery, expect to have difficulty living within the quota which they have left.
The limited relief that we have been able to give YAFPO has, as I understand it, allowed YAFPO members to resume landing cod within strict limits. My hon. Friends are understandably concerned at the severity of those limits as they affect YAFPO members whom they represent. My understanding of YAFPO's latest catch position on the basis of my Department's figures up to 24 October is that it has 169 tonnes left.
I hope that what I have said will have helped to put the problems facing the fishermen whom my hon. Friends represent in a wider perspective. I assure my hon. Friends that I will draw the points that they have made—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to One o'clock.